IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 22.01.2026 MANI RAM AND OTHERS ...APPELLANTS VERSUS ANIL AND OTHERS ...RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PARMOD GOYAL Present: Mr. S.P. Arora, Advocate and Ms. Muskan, Advocate for the appellants.

Mr. Lalit Garg, Advocate for the respondent-Insurance Company.

PARMOD GOYAL, J. (ORAL)

1. The appellants-parents of deceased Ram Niwas being aggrieved by the quantum of compensation awarded by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Gurgaon (hereinafter referred to as ‘Tribunal’), vide award dated 12.12.2000, whereby the appellants-claimants were held entitled to total compensation of Rs. 1,20,000/-, have filed present appeal.

2. It was the case of the appellants-claimants that deceased Ram Niwas, aged about 22 years, died on account of rash and negligent driving of Tractor No. HR-36-B-6604 by respondent No. 1. Since the issue regarding the manner of accident is not under challenge and no appeal has been preferred by the respondents, the detailed facts relating to the occurrence/accident are not being adverted herein for the sake of brevity.

3. The appellants-claimants sought compensation on the ground that the deceased was 22 years of age and was earning Rs. 5,000/- per month from agriculture and dairy farming, and that both the appellants-claimants, being his parents, were wholly dependent upon him. There is no rebuttal with regard to the age of the deceased or to the fact that the appellants-claimants are the parents of the deceased. However, the learned Tribunal had assessed the income of the deceased at Rs. 1,800/- per month as against Rs. 5,000/- per month as pleaded by the appellants-claimants.

4. On consideration of the evidence led by the appellants-claimants, it is clearly made out that the appellants-claimants have failed to prove the pleaded income and vocation of the deceased. Except for self-serving oral assertions that the deceased was earning Rs. 5,000/- per month from agriculture and dairy farming, no substantive or corroborative evidence has been placed on record in support of the said assertions. No material whatsoever has been produced to justify a higher income equivalent to Rs. 5,000/- per month. Therefore, in the present case, the income of the deceased ought to have been assessed on the basis of minimum wages payable to an unskilled worker. The minimum wages applicable in the year 2000 for an unskilled worker were Rs. 1,905/- per month. Accordingly, the monthly income of the deceased is assessed at Rs. 1,905/- instead of Rs. 1,800/- per month as taken by the learned Tribunal.

5. As per the appellants-claimants, the deceased was 22 years old, whereas as per the post-mortem report, his age was mentioned as 24 years. Thus, the deceased is taken to be in the age group of 21 to 25 years, for which the appropriate multiplier is of 18.

6. Since the deceased was unmarried and the appellants-claimants are his parents, deduction towards personal and living expenses is required to be made. Following the settled law, deduction to the extent of 50% is applied. While calculating the loss of dependency, addition towards future prospects is required to be made in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi and others 2017 (4) RCR (Civil) 1009. Keeping in view the age of the deceased, an addition of 40% towards future prospects is warranted.

7. The appellants-claimants shall also be entitled to compensation under conventional heads, namely Rs. 7,500/- towards funeral expenses, Rs. 7,500/- towards loss of estate, and Rs. 15,000/- each towards filial consortium payable to both parent in terms of settled law.

8. Accordingly, the claimants-appellants shall be entitled to the fol-

lowing compensation:

9. The appellants–claimants shall also be entitled to interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum on the enhanced amount from the date of filing of the claim petition till its realization. The apportionment