218 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision : 25.02.2026 Sushila and Others ... Appellants Versus Balbir Singh and Others ... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ALKA SARIN Present : Mr. Sandeep Kotla, Advocate for the appellants.

Mr. Vinod Gupta, Advocate for respondent No.3.

ALKA SARIN, J. (Oral)

1. Present appeal has been preferred by the claimant-appellants aggrieved by the quantum of compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Fatehabad (hereinafter referred to as ‘Tribunal’) vide the impugned award dated 18.11.2008 on account of death of Pawan Kumar (hereinafter referred to as the ‘deceased’) in a motor vehicle accident which occurred on 31.10.2006.

2. Since the factum of the accident is not in dispute, the facts are not being adverted to for the sake of brevity.

3. The Tribunal in the present case had awarded the following compensation :

Sr. No. Heads Compensation Awarded

1 Monthly Income ₹3,000/-

2 Deduction - 1/3rd ₹2,000/- [₹3,000 - ₹1,000]

4. Learned counsel for the claimant-appellants would contend that he does not challenge the income of the deceased as assessed by the Tribunal. However, he has contended that there were four claimants in the present case and a deduction of 1/3^rd has wrongly been applied which should be 1/4^th. It is further the contention that no addition has been made towards loss of future prospects which ought to have been 40% inasmuch as the deceased was 21 years of age at the time of the accident. It has further been contended that the Tribunal has wrongly applied a multiplier of ‘17’, which ought to have been ‘18’ keeping in view the age of the deceased being 21 years. It has further been contended that the compensation awarded under the conventional heads as well as under the head ‘loss of consortium’ are not in accordance with the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. In support of his contentions, learned counsel for the claimant-appellants has relied upon the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of Sarla Verma & Ors. vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr. [(2009) 6 SCC 121], National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors. [(2017) 16 SCC 680], Magma General Insurance Company Limited vs. Nanu Ram alias Chuhru Ram & Ors. [(2018) 18 SCC 130] and N. Jayasree & Ors. vs. Cholamandalam M.S General Insurance Company Ltd. [2021(4) RCR (Civil) 642]

5. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent No.3- Insurance Company would contend that in the present case the father of the deceased cannot be treated as a dependent since there is no evidence on the record to show that he was dependent on the deceased hence a deduction of 1/3^rd has rightly been applied. It is further the contention that sufficient amount has already been awarded as compensation in the present case and that there is no scope of any enhancement.

6. Heard.

7. Admittedly, no appeal has been preferred by the Insurance Company. In the present case, since no challenge has been laid by the learned counsel for the claimant-appellants to the income of the deceased as assessed by the Tribunal, the same is maintained accordingly.

8. The argument of the learned counsel for respondent No.3- Insurance Company that a deduction of 1/3^rd has rightly been applied as the father cannot be considered as a dependent on the deceased deserves to be rejected in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sadhana Tomar & Ors. vs. Ashok Kushwaha & Ors. [2025 (1)

PLR 503] wherein it has been held as under :

“13. This Court has clarified in the case of Meena Devi v. Nunu Chand Mahto [(2023) 1 SCC 204], that the objective of granting compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, is to ensure that just and fair compensation is paid to the aggrieved party. A