IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision:26.02.2026 Sunil Kumar and Another ...Appellants Versus Makhan Singh and Others ...Respondents FAO-542-2004 (O&M)

Date of decision:26.02.2026 Gobind Ram Goyal and Another ...Appellants Versus Makhan Singh and Others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PARMOD GOYAL Present: Mr. Ravikant Berwal, Advocate for appellants in both the appeals.

Mr. Paul S. Saini, Advocate for respondent No.3 in both the appeals.

***

PARMOD GOYAL, J. (ORAL)

1. Appellants-claimants have filed two appeals which are being taken up together as both the claim petitions preferred by appellants- claimants arise out of the same accident and were decided by impugned award dated 01.10.2003, passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bathinda (hereinafter referred to as ‘Tribunal’). Appellants-claimants in FAO-130-2004 being the husband and minor son of deceased Anita Rani (hereinafter referred to as ‘deceased’), aggrieved by the grant of compensation of Rs.1,87,000/- by learned Tribunal have sought enhancement of compensation. Appellants-claimants in FAO-542-2004 being the parents of deceased Vimal Goyal are aggrieved by the grant of compensation of Rs.4,32,000/- by the learned Tribunal have sought enhancement of compensation.

2. Deceased Anita Rani and Vimal Goyal had died in motor vehicular accident which took place on 31.03.2001 on account of rash and negligent driving by respondent No.1 while driving truck bearing registration No. RJ-13-G 5421.

3. Since in present appeal the only issue raised by appellants- claimants is as regards to quantum of compensation and there is no appeal or cross-objection preferred by respondents to challenge manner of accident, the detailed facts as regards to manner of accident are not being noticed for the sake of brevity.

4. Appellants-claimants have sought enhanced compensation. However, learned counsel for respondents has argued that sufficient amount has already been given as compensation in the present case and there is no scope of any enhancement.

FAO No.130 of 2004

5. The Tribunal in the present case had awarded the following compensation in the claim petition filed by the husband and minor son of deceased Anita Rani:

Income of deceased Rs.15,000/-

per annum Deduction Rs. 1/3^rd Multiplier 18

6. Learned counsel for appellants-claimants has sought enhancement in compensation on following grounds that:-

● Income of deceased was not correctly taken. That the income of the deceased taken by learned Tribunal is on the lower side. That deceased was 28 years of age at the time of accident and was a home-maker. Learned Tribunal ought to have taken income of deceased as per the minimum wages payable to unskilled worker prevalent at the time of accident.

● Future prospects were not added while determining loss of dependency. Future prospects to the extent 40% of monthly income needs to be added as the deceased was

26 years of age at the time of accident.

● Appropriate amount of compensation amount needs to be granted under the head funeral expenses, loss of estate and loss of filial and parental consortium in accordance with law laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court.

7. Merely because deceased was housewife, her contribution towards family cannot be considered any lesser than an earning member. A housewife contributes immensely towards the welfare of family and her contribution cannot be less than an earning member, who would have earned and contributed to the family in terms of money. This view of mine find support from Kirti Singh & Anr. Vs. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., 2021 (1) RCR (Civil) 478. The deceased in the present case was 28 years of age and was a home-maker. The minimum wage for an unskilled worker prevailing at the time of the accident was admittedly Rs.2,035/- per month. Therefore, income of deceased is taken as Rs.2,035/- per month. Age of the deceased was admittedly 28 years at the time of accident, hence, 40% future prospects ought to be awarded