218 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision:20.01.2026 Ranjit Kaur And Others ...Appellants Vs.

Inderjit Singh And Another ...Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIRINDER AGGARWAL Present: Mr. Gurvinder Singh Sidhu, Advocate for appellants.

Ms. Manvi Verma, Advocate for Mr. Rajneesh Malhotra, Advocate for respondent No.2/National Insurance Company.

VIRINDER AGGARWAL , J. ( Oral)

1. This appeal has been filed by the claimants seeking enhancement of compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sirsa, vide award dated 04.06.2001 passed under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 on account of the death of Boota Singh in a motor accident.

BACKGROUND FACTS

2. On 31.01.1999, Boota Singh, aged about 42 years, was driving a jeep bearing registration No. URP-5751 from Kalanwali to Malout. During the course of the journey, on account of the sudden bursting of a tyre, the jeep overturned, as a result of which he sustained grievous injuries. He was initially taken to a private hospital at Dabwali and was thereafter referred to Bathinda for further treatment, where he ultimately succumbed to the injuries. Consequent upon his death, the claimants instituted the present claim petition under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, claiming compensation ₹

to the tune of 5,00,000 on account of the death of Boota Singh.

3. Upon consideration of the pleadings and appreciation of the oral as well as documentary evidence on record, the learned Tribunal returned a clear finding that the accident dated 31.01.1999 occurred on account of the use of the jeep bearing registration No. (URP-5751), which overturned due to the sudden bursting of its tyre, resulting in grievous injuries to its driver, Boota Singh, who subsequently succumbed thereto. The said finding was supported by the testimony of the claimant-witness (RW-1), the FIR (Ex.P2) and the post-mortem report (Ex.P3), which collectively established the manner in which the accident occurred. For the purpose of determining compensation, the learned Tribunal assessed the age of the deceased as 45 years. With respect to the income of the deceased, the learned Tribunal, keeping in view the fact that he was working as a driver and earning a ₹

monthly salary, assessed his income at 1,500 per month. After deducting one-third of the said amount towards his personal and living expenses, the ₹

annual dependency was assessed at 12,000. Applying a multiplier of 15, the ₹

loss of dependency was thus computed at 1,80,000. In addition thereto, the ₹

learned Tribunal awarded a sum of 20,000 towards loss of consortium and a ₹

further sum of 5,000 towards funeral expenses and last rites. Consequently, ₹

the total compensation was quantified at 2,00,000, payable to the claimants along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum. The learned Tribunal further held both the respondents jointly and severally liable for payment of the awarded compensation.

CONTENTION

4. Learned counsel for the appellants contended that the compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal is grossly inadequate and does not represent a just assessment of the loss suffered by the claimants. It was argued that despite cogent evidence on record, the learned Tribunal erred in not properly considering the income of the deceased, including the pension being drawn by him, as well as the family pension payable to the dependents after his death. It was further submitted that the learned Tribunal failed to take into account the fact that the deceased was the sole breadwinner of a large family, including blind dependents, which resulted in an unduly low determination of dependency. Learned counsel also assailed the application of a multiplier of 15, contending that the same is erroneous and on the lower side having regard to the provisions of Section 163-A read with Schedule II of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, thereby leading to an unjust and inadequate computation of compensation.

5. Learned counsel appearin