IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Reserved on: 06.02.2026 Pronounced on: 10.03.2026 POONAM DEVI AND ANOTHER ..….Appellants Vs.

NARENDER KUMAR AND OTHERS ..….Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJA Present: Mr. Abhimanyu Singh, Advocate for the appellants Mr. Vinod Gupta, Advocate for respondent No.3/ Insurance Company.

*****

HARKESH MANUJA, J

1. By way of present appeal, challenge has been laid to an award dated

23.07.2021 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bhiwani (for brevity, “the Tribunal”), whereby an amount of Rs. 19,97,800/- was awarded as compensation to the appellants/claimants along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of petition till its realization on account of death of Ravi Kumar (aged 23 years) in a motor vehicular accident, that occurred on 06.11.2016.

2. Since the sole issue for determination in the present appeal is confined to the quantum of compensation and apportionment, a detailed narration of the facts of the case is omitted herein for the sake of brevity.

ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLANTS

3. Learned counsel for the appellants/claimants assailed the award by contending that the deceased was a mason earning approximately Rs. 24,000/- per month; however the ld. Tribunal arbitrarily and erroneously assessed his monthly income as Rs.8,500/-. It was further argued that the amount awarded under the conventional heads was also towards the lower side. Furthermore, the appellants who are the parents of the deceased, also assailed the apportionment made by the learned Tribunal and prayed that the compensation amount be distributed equally, granting 20% share to each of the five claimants.

ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF LEARNED COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENT No.3/INSURANCE COMPANY

4. Per contra, learned counsel representing respondent No. 3/Insurance Company neither refuted the factum of accident nor even the negligence of the offending vehicle, however submitted that in the facts of the present case, the compensation assessed by the learned Tribunal called for no interference.

DISCUSSION

5. I have heard learned counsels for the parties and perused the paper-

book of the case. I find force in the arguments advanced by learned Counsel for the appellants.

QUESTION OF INCOME ASSESSED

6. In the present case, appellants/claimants asserted that deceased was a mason and earning Rs 24,000/- per month, however they failed to lead any cogent evidence on record in regard to the same and the learned Tribunal assessed the monthly income of deceased @ Rs. 8,500/- while considering the deceased as a daily wager. As the nature of proceedings in Motor Accident Claims, being summary in nature, evidence in stricto sensu is not required.

6.1 Further, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal no. 014496 of

2025 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 20469/2025) titled as Rajesh Chakrawarti v. Dinesh Kumar Yadav and Anr. held that in professions such as masonry, where there is no guarantee of regular work or documented payments, courts and Motor Accident Claims Tribunals must exercise caution while determining a claimant’s income. Court emphasised that a judicious balance must be maintained so that the income assessed while being fair to the claimant, also has a reasonable basis and is not excessive in nature. Relevant excerpt is reproduced hereinafter:-

“10. The aspect of income can be put to rest with a simple observation that no proof whatsoever has been attached to show that the claimant-appellant was earning Rs.15,000/-. That being the case, we find no reason to interfere with the conclusion of the High Court, which has correctly assessed the claimant-appellant's income at Rs.6,200/- per month. It has to be acknowledged that in professions such as masonry, wherein there can be no guarantee of fixed amount of work or, for that matter, documented payments, the Courts and Tribunals must be careful in determining income, maintaining a judicious balance in taking an amount which is fair