IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision- 20.02.2026 Amandeep Singh and Another … Appellants Versus Gandhi Sharma and Others … Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE VIRINDER AGGARWAL Present: Mr. M.L. Saini, Advocate for appellants Ms. Ayushi Jain, Advocate, Mr. Pardeep Goyal, 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 03.01.2005 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kapurthala, whereby the compensation of ₹1,53,200/- along with interest at 9% per annum was granted on account of death of Atma Singh and Gian Kaur in a motor vehicular accident that took place on 17.12.1998.

BACKGROUND FACTS

2. The brief facts of the case are that on 17.12.1998 at about 8:15 p.m., Atma Singh and his wife Gian Kaur were proceeding towards the Bus Stand, Phagwara on scooter No. PB-07-E-2982. When they stopped at a red light near Rest House Chowk, Phagwara, a truck bearing registration No. PAT-887, allegedly driven rashly and negligently by respondent No.1, came from behind and rammed into their scooter. As a result of the impact, both sustained grievous injuries and succumbed to the same. FIR was promptly registered on the statement of Amandeep Singh. Thereafter, the claimants filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, seeking compensation on account of the death of Atma Singh and Gian Kaur.

3. Upon a comprehensive appreciation of the oral as well as documentary evidence on record, the learned Tribunal, returned a categorical finding that the accident dated 17.12.1998, resulting in the death of Atma Singh and Gian Kaur, stood duly proved and had occurred on account of the rash and negligent driving of Truck No. PAT-887 by respondent No.1. The finding of negligence was primarily based on the ocular testimony of Satnam Singh (PW-1) and Amandeep Singh (PW-2), who were found to be natural and trustworthy witnesses to the occurrence. Their version was duly corroborated by the prompt lodging of the FIR (Ex. P-1), the Post-Mortem Reports (Ex.P2 and Ex.P3) of both the deceased, and other contemporaneous records. The learned Tribunal thus held that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by respondent No.1. With regard to the quantum of compensation, the learned Tribunal did not accept the claim of the petitioners that Atma Singh was serving as a Pharmacist and Gian Kaur as a JBT Teacher under the Punjab Government, observing that no legally admissible documentary evidence had been proved in accordance with law to substantiate their salaried employment and income. In the absence of cogent proof, Atma Singh was treated as a labourer and his monthly income was assessed at ₹2,100/-, out of which ₹700/- was deducted towards personal expenses, leaving a monthly contribution of ₹1,400/- to the family. Gian Kaur was treated as a housewife, and the value of her services was assessed at ₹700/- per month. Thus, the total monthly loss of dependency was calculated at ₹2,100/-. Considering the age of Atma Singh to be about 54 years and that of Gian Kaur to be about 50 years at the time of death, the Tribunal applied a multiplier of 6. The total loss of dependency was accordingly computed at ₹1,51,200/- (₹2,100 × 12 × 6). An additional sum of ₹2,000/- was awarded towards funeral expenses. Consequently, a total compensation of ₹1,53,200/- was awarded in favour of petitioner Nos.1 and 2, along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till realization. The liability to pay the awarded amount was fastened jointly and severally upon all the respondents.

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 Vehic