IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

232 FAO-15840-2018(O&M)

Date of decision: 12.03.2026 Gurpreet Kaur & Others ...Appellant(s)

Vs.

Om Pal & Others ...Respondent(s)

***

CORAM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA Present:- Ms. Manvi Singla, Advocate for the appellants.

Ms. Harmanpreet Kaur, Advocate for the respondent No.1.

Mr. Amit Jaiswal, Advocate for respondent No.3.

***

NIDHI GUPTA, J.

CM-28364-CII-2018 This is an application under Section 5 of Limitation Act for condonation of delay of 49 days in filing the appeal.

After going through the contents of the application, which is supported by affidavit of appellant No.1, the same is allowed subject to all just exceptions and delay of 49 days in filing the present appeal is condoned.

MAIN CASE Present appeal has been filed by the claimants seeking enhancement of compensation of Rs.18,55,600/- awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ludhiana (hereinafter ‘the learned Tribunal’) vide Award dated 15.05.2018 passed in MACP Case No.198 of 2016 filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act (hereinafter “the Act”). The 3 claimants are the 33-year-old widow, 15-year-old daughter and 13-year-old son of deceased Tarlochan Singh, who was 34 years old at time of accident. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the ld. Tribunal on the basis of pleadings and oral & documentary evidence adduced by the parties, concluded that deceased Tarlochan Singh had died due to the injuries suffered by him in a motor vehicular accident that took place on 23.11.2015 due to the rash and negligent driving of Tanker bearing registration No.HR- 37B-3477 (hereinafter “the offending vehicle”) being driven by respondent No.1, owned by respondent No.2, who are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation along with interest @ 7.5%.

3. Ld. counsel for the appellants seeks enhancement of compensation by submitting that income of the deceased has been taken on the lower side as only Rs.10,000/- per month. It is submitted that the appellants had duly proved on record that the deceased was working as a Property Advisor and was also selling milk, from all of which, he was earning Rs.25,000/- per month. To prove the income, the appellants had also produced Income Tax Returns of the deceased as Ex.P4 and Ex.P5. It is accordingly submitted that income of the deceased ought to have been taken as Rs.25,000/- per month. Learned counsel further submits that nothing has been awarded by way of consortium to the claimants No.2 and 3/minor children of the deceased. It is accordingly prayed that the present appeal be allowed and impugned compensation be modified as above.

4. Per contra, Ld. counsel for respondents No.1 and 3 oppose submissions made on behalf of the appellants and submit that the impugned Award suffers from no error; and present appeal be dismissed.

5. Learned counsel for respondent No.3 further points out that the Insurance Company has been granted recovery rights against respondents No.1 and 2 as the offending vehicle did not possess valid Route Permit.

6. No other argument is made on behalf of the parties. I have heard learned counsel and perused the case file in detail. I find some merit in the submissions advanced on behalf of the appellants.

7. It has firstly been contended by learned counsel for the appellants that income of the deceased has not been properly assessed as the appellants had proved that deceased was working as a Property Advisor and was also doing work of selling milk from which he was earning Rs.25,000/- per month. To prove the same, the appellants had duly produced Income Tax Returns (Ex.P4 and Ex.P5). However, it is undisputed that the said Income Tax Returns are only the ‘photocopies’ of the Income Tax Returns. Primarily, photocopies of the Income Tax Returns are not reliable evidence. Admittedly even no official from the Income Tax Department has been examined to prove the said returns. Moreover, the said Returns pertain to the years 2009-10 and 2010-11; whereas the accident ha