IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision-26.02.2026 Poonam Rani And Others … Appellants Versus Prem Singh And Others … Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE VIRINDER AGGARWAL Present: Mr. Abhishek Sharma, Advocate, Mr. Vishal Gupta, Advocate for appellants Mr. Neeraj Khanna, Advocate, Mr. Ravinder Arora, Advocate for respondent No.3.

*****

VIRINDER AGGARWAL, J .(ORAL)

1. This appeal has been preferred by the claimants seeking enhancement of compensation awarded vide award dated 25.11.2004 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Karnal, whereby the compensation of ₹6,61,720/- along with interest at 9% per annum was granted on account of death of Narain Dass in a motor vehicular accident that took place on 15.11.2003.

BACKGROUND FACTS

2. The brief facts of the case are that on 15.11.2003 at about 1:30 p.m., Narain Dass, aged 44 years, was proceeding from Karnal to Ambala on his motorcycle bearing registration No. HR-05M-4095, with Vinod Kumar as pillion rider. At about 3:00 p.m., when they reached near Shahabad Markanda Bridge near Saha, truck bearing registration No. HR-38J-3999, driven by respondent No.1 Prem Singh in a rash and negligent manner at a high speed, came from the side of Saha and violently struck the motorcycle. Due to the forceful impact, Narain Dass was crushed under the wheels of the truck and died on the spot, whereas Vinod Kumar sustained injuries. FIR No. 368 dated 15.11.2003 under Sections 279/304-A/337 IPC was registered at Police Station Shahabad. Thereafter, the claimants filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, seeking compensation on account of the death of Narain dass.

3. Upon a comprehensive appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence on record, the learned Tribunal returned a categorical finding that the accident resulting in the death of Narain Dass was duly proved and had occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of respondent No. 1, Prem Singh, while driving truck No. HR-38J-3999. The finding of negligence was primarily based on the ocular testimony of Vinod Kumar (PW1), an injured eye-witness who was travelling as pillion rider on the motorcycle at the time of the occurrence, as well as on the fact that respondent No. 1 is facing criminal trial in connection with the accident. The said evidence stood duly corroborated by the contemporaneous record, including the FIR (Ex.PD), copy of challan (Ex.PE) and the Post-Mortem Report (Ex.PF), which consistently recorded the details of the occurrence. While assessing the quantum of compensation, the learned Tribunal determined the age of the deceased to be 44 years. The claim of the appellants that the deceased was a sweeper in FCI earning gross salary of ₹12,648/- per month (as per pay-slip Ex.PC) was not accepted in full. The learned Tribunal assessed the net carry-home salary of the deceased at ₹5,873/- per month after deductions. After deducting 1/3rd towards personal expenses of the deceased, the annual dependency was assessed at ₹56,980/-. Since the age of the deceased was 44 years, the learned Tribunal applied a multiplier of 14 and awarded ₹6,57,720/- towards loss of dependency. In addition, ₹2,000/- was awarded towards funeral and transportation expenses and ₹2,000/- as loss of consortium to the widow. Consequently, a total compensation of ₹6,61,720/- was awarded along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till realization, with joint and several liability fastened upon respondents Nos. 1 to 3.

CONTENTIONS

4. Learned counsel for the appellants contended that the compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal is manifestly inadequate and contrary to the settled principles governing the determination of just compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act. It was submitted that the learned Tribunal has erred in assessing the income of the deceased. It was further argued that the multiplier applied by the learned Tribunal is erroneous and n