IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision : 06.03.2026 Ranju and Others ... Appellants Versus Upender Singh and Others ... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ALKA SARIN Present : Mr. M.S. Randhawa, Advocate for the appellants.

Mr. Punit Jain, Advocate for respondent No.3.

ALKA SARIN, J. (Oral)

1. The present appeal has been preferred by the claimant-appellants aggrieved by the quantum of compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Narnaul (hereinafter referred to as ‘Tribunal’) vide the impugned award dated 30.09.2015 on account of death of Rakesh Kumar (hereinafter referred to as the ‘deceased’) in a motor vehicle accident which occurred on 16.02.2015.

2. Since the factum of the accident is not in dispute, the facts are not being adverted to for the sake of brevity.

3. The Tribunal in the present case had awarded the following compensation :

Sr. No. Heads Compensation Awarded

1 Monthly Income ₹22,837/-

2 Deduction - 1/3rd ₹15,225/- [₹22,837 - ₹7,612]

3 Annual Income ₹1,82,700/- [₹15,225 x 12]

4 Multiplier - 15 ₹27,40,500/- [₹1,82,700 x 15]

4. Learned counsel for the claimant-appellants would contend that though he does not challenge the deduction as applied by the Tribunal, however, he has contended that the income of the deceased has wrongly been assessed on the lower side as ₹22,837/- per month inasmuch as the deceased was getting a salary of ₹27,104/- per month and a salary certificate to this effect was produced on the record as Ex.PW1/B. It has further been contended that the Tribunal has not made any addition towards loss of future prospects, which ought to have been 50% as the deceased was in Government Service. It is further the contention that the age of the deceased was 35 years 01 month and 15 days i.e. below the age of 36 years, therefore, a multiplier of ‘16’ ought to have been applied instead of ‘15’. Further, the compensation awarded under the conventional heads as well as under the head ‘loss of consortium’ is not in accordance with the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. In support of his contention, he has relied upon the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of Sarla Verma & Ors. vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr. [(2009) 6 SCC 121], National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors. [(2017) 16 SCC 680], Magma General Insurance Company Limited vs. Nanu Ram alias Chuhru Ram & Ors. [(2018) 18 SCC 130] and N. Jayasree & Ors. vs. Cholamandalam M.S General Insurance Company Ltd. [2021(4) RCR (Civil) 642]

5. Learned counsel for respondent No.3-Insurance Company has vehemently argued that sufficient amount has already been awarded as compensation in the present case and that there is no scope of any enhancement.

6. Heard.

7. Admittedly, no appeal has been preferred by the Insurance Company. In the present case, since no challenge has been laid by the learned counsel for the claimant-appellants to the deduction as applied by the Tribunal, the same is maintained accordingly.

8. In the present case, admittedly, the deceased was in a permanent job with the CRPF. The claimants have examined ASI/JD Jaswant Singh, CRPF, GC, Gurugram as PW-1. This witness brought the original record pertaining to the deceased and produced on record attested copy of service certificate as Ex.PW1/A and attested copy of pay slip as Ex.PW1/B. This witness deposed that the deceased was drawing a net salary of ₹27,104/- per month. The Tribunal has assessed the income of the deceased as ₹22,837/- per month after deducting an amount of ₹4,267/- towards personal allowances, which in the opinion of this Court is erroneous. PW-1 ASI/JD Jaswant Singh has proved on record the salary certificate of the deceased as Ex.PW1/B, which reveals the gross salary of the deceased as ₹27,104/- per month. In view of the judgment in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd