Gv `IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision:21.01.2026 Ashvarya and Others … Appellants Versus Dharam Raj and Others … Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PARMOD GOYAL Present: Mr. Gurasis Singh, Advocate for Mr. Saurabh Dalal, Advocate for appellants.

Mr. Pardeep Goyal, Advocate for respondent No.3.

***

PARMOD GOYAL, J. (ORAL)

Present appeal has been preferred by the appellants-claimants being the wife, minor son and mother of the deceased-Pardeep Kumar (hereinafter referred to as the ‘deceased’), who died in a motor vehicular accident which took place on 25.01.2000, on account of rash and negligent driving by respondent No.1 while driving Haryana Roadways bus bearing registration No. HR-46-0265.

2. Being aggrieved by the impugned award dated 25.01.2000, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Rohtak (hereinafter referred to as ‘Tribunal’), vide which the appellants-claimants were found entitled to total compensation of Rs.7,68,000/-, the appellants-claimants are seeking enhancement of compensation awarded by the Tribunal as the same is not accordance with their entitlement.

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

Income of deceased Rs.6,000/- per month Deduction 1/3^rd Rs. 4,000/-

(6,000-2,000)

Multiplier 16 Total loss of Income & awarded Rs. 7,68,000/-

compensation (4,000 x12 x 16)

5. Ld. Counsel for claimants-appellants have 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 27 years of age at the time of accident working as Sr. Accountant in Ministry of Health and Welfare Department and his monthly salary was Rs. 8,901/-. Ld. Tribunal has erred by deducting allowances of Rs.1,845/- from salary for determining loss of dependency. That income of deceased ought to have been taken as Rs.8901/- per month as proved vide salary certificate Ex. P8.

• Future prospects were not added while determining loss of dependency. Future prospects to the extent 50% of monthly income needs to be added as the deceased was 27 years of age at the time of accident.

• Multiplier applied by learned Tribunal is ‘16’ whereas, keeping in view the age of deceased the multiplier of ‘17’ ought to have been granted.

• Excessive deduction towards personal expences of deceased were deducted while determining dependency. Deduction of Rs. 1,000/- towards transportation in addition to personal expences has wrongly been made as same same was part of personal expences.

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

6. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.3 has argued that sufficient amount has already been given as compensation in the present case and there is no scope of any enhancement.

7. Learned Tribunal has assessed income of deceased as Rs.6,000/- per month after deducting allowances amounting to Rs. 1845/- and thereafter further deducted Rs.1,000/- towards transportation expenses from Rohtak to Delhi, since he used to travel for work. Loss of dependency was assessed as Rs. 4,000/- pm after further deducting 1/3rd of assessed income of Rs. 6,000/- 8. PW4-wife of deceased stated that deceased was working as a Sr.

Accountant in Ministry of Health and Welfare Department and his monthly salary was Rs.8,901/- including basic pay of Rs.5,150 and other allowances like HRS, CCA and TA etc. payable to an employee. Salary certificate Ex.P8 was relied upon by claimants and accepted by Ld. Tribunal. However