IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision:25.02.2026 Anita and others .…Appellants Versus Neeraj and others ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA Present: - Mr. Shakti Mehta, Advocate for the appellants.

NIDHI GUPTA, J. CM-4843-CII-2025

1. Prayer in this application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 read with section 151 CPC is for condonation of delay of 31 days in filing the accompanying appeal.

2. Heard.

3. For the reasons mentioned in the application which is supported by an affidavit, the same is allowed and delay of 31 days in filing the present appeal is condoned.

FAO-1551-2025

1. The appellant-claimants have filed the present appeal seeking enhancement of the compensation amount of ₹25,90,500/- awarded by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chandigarh (for short-‘the learned Tribunal) vide impugned Award dated 14.10.2024, passed in petition bearing MACP No. 352 dated 14.07.2021 filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The 04 claimants are the: i) 41-year-old widow; ii) 17-year-old son; iii) 16-year-old son; and iv) 64-year-old mother of deceased-Vijender Kumar @ Bajender Kumar, who was aged around 44 years at the time of accident.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the learned Tribunal on the basis of pleadings and evidence adduced before it concluded that deceased-Vijender Kumar, had died due to injuries, suffered by him in a motor vehicular accident that took place on 07.04.2021due to rash and negligent driving of Truck bearing registration No. HP-11-A-5826 (hereinafter ‘the offending vehicle’) by respondent No.1-Neeraj; owned by respondent No. 2-Asha Devi; and insured by respondent No. 3- Insurance Company. Ld. Tribunal awarded compensation as above along with interest @ 7% per annum from the date of filing the claim petition till actual realization. All respondents were held jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation.

3. The only ground on which the appellant-claimants have sought enhancement of compensation is that income of the deceased has been assessed on the lower side as ₹15,000/- per month. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that prior to the accident, the deceased was running a Readymade Garment Shop at Baltana from which his annual income was ₹4,85,000/-. Although it is not argued, but a perusal of the Grounds of Appeal shows that the appellants have sought enhancement on the ground that future prospects ought to have been added @ 30%; that ₹1,00,000/- each should have been awarded under the head of Love and Affection; and that interest ought to been awarded @ 12% per annum.

4. No other argument is raised on behalf of the appellants. I have heard learned counsel and perused the case file in detail. I find no merit in the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellant-

claimants.

5. Perusal of the record shows that it was the pleaded case of the appellant-claimants before the learned Tribunal that prior to the accident deceased was running a Readymade Garment Shop at Baltana, from which the annual income of the deceased was ₹4,85,000/-. To prove their case, the appellants have produced Income Tax Returns of the deceased for the Assessment Year 2016-17 Ex. P-5; and 2017-18 as Ex.P- 6, which showed the annual income of deceased as ₹2,41,740/- and ₹2,48,780/- respectively. Admittedly, the deceased had expired on 07.04.2021. On a Court query as to why the Income Tax Returns of the deceased for the preceding 03 years i.e. 2018-19, 2019-20 and 2020-21 have not been produced by the appellants, learned counsel for the appellant has no reply. In this circumstance, the learned Tribunal has correctly assessed income of the deceased as ₹15,000/- per month for the following reasons: -

“9. ....The Income Tax Returns Ex.P5 and Ex.P6 of deceased Vijender Kumar alias Bajender Kumar cannot be taken into consideration for assessing his income at the time of death, because there is no continuity and his income was apparently f