IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 05.05.2025 Darshana Kaur and another .…Appellants Versus Paramjit Singh and others ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA Present: - Mr. KP Singh, Advocate for the appellants.

NIDHI GUPTA, J.

CM-15895-CII-2019 Prayer in this application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 is for condonation of delay of 327 days in filing the accompanying appeal.

Heard. (cid:1) (cid:1)

The only ground for cited in the application for condonation of delay of 327 days days in filing the accompanying appeal is that ‘the appellants were not aware about the limitation’.

The said reason does not constitute sufficient ground for condonation of inordinate and extraordinary delay of 320 days in filing the appeal. The present application, accordingly, stands dismissed.

FAO-4725-2019 (O&M)

1. The present appeal has been filed by the claimants seeking enhancement of compensation of ₹12,39,660/– awarded by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, SAS Nagar Mohali (hereinafter referred to as ‘the learned Tribunal’) vide Award dated 15.05.2018 passed in the claim petition bearing MACT Case No. 216 dated 09.11.2016, filed by the appellant-claimants under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The 02 claimants are the parents of deceased-Taranpreet Singh @ Monu who was stated to be 20 years old at the time of accident.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the learned Tribunal on the basis of pleadings and evidence adduced before it concluded that deceased-Taranpreet Singh @ Monu, had died in a motor vehicular accident that took place on 03.12.2015 due to rash and negligent driving of Tata Truck bearing registration No. HR-37-D-0472 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the offending vehicle’) by respondent No.1-Paramjit Singh; owned by respondent No. 2-Vikas Kumar; and insured by respondent No.3-Insurance Company. Learned Tribunal awarded compensation as above along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing the claim petition till actual realization.

3. Learned counsel for the appellants seeks enhancement of compensation only on the ground that income of the deceased has been assessed by the learned Tribunal on the lower side as ₹8000/- per month. It is submitted that the deceased-Taranpreet Singh @ Monu, was running a Karyana shop in front portion of his house and was earning ₹20,000/- per month. The appellants have proved said income from evidence of PW-3 Surinder Singh, Sarpanch of village Kanspur, who tendered his affidavit Ex. PW-3/A, stating therein that after matriculation, the deceased was running a Karyana shop in front portion of his house and was earning ₹20,000/- per month. Thus, income of deceased was proved. It is also submitted that nothing has been awarded by the learned Tribunal towards consortium to the claimants. It is accordingly, prayed that the impugned Award be modified and the amount of compensation so awarded by the learned Tribunal be enhanced.

4. No other argument is raised on behalf of the appellants.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the appellants and perused the case file in great detail.

6. I find no merit in the aforesaid submissions made on behalf of the appellants. It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that deceased -Taranpreet Singh @ Monu was running a Karyana shop from which he was earning ₹20,000/- per month. In this regard, appellants have relied upon evidence of PW-3 Surinder Singh, Sarpanch of the village. However, admittedly, no documentary proof of alleged income of the deceased has been produced by the appellants. Only on the basis of oral testimony, income of the deceased cannot be taken as ₹20,000/- per month. As such, I find that the learned Tribunal has rightly assessed the notional income of the deceased as ₹8,000/- per month.

7. Further, age of the deceased was determined to be 20 years on the basis of his post-mortem report (Ex. P-11). As such, addition of 40% towards future prospects has been