IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision:23.03.2026 Pooja and others .…Appellants Versus Surender Jaglan and another ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA Present: - Mr. Ravi Ambawata, Advocate for the appellants.

NIDHI GUPTA, J. CM-6566-CII-2025

1. Prayer in this application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 read with section 151 CPC is for condonation of delay of 75 days in filing the accompanying appeal.

2. Heard.

3. For the reasons mentioned in the application which is supported by an affidavit, the same is allowed and delay of 75 days in filing the present appeal is condoned.

FAO-2063-2025

1. The appellant-claimants have filed the present appeal seeking enhancement of the compensation amount of ₹21,66,000/- awarded by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Narnaul (for short-‘the learned Tribunal) vide impugned Award dated 20.09.2024, passed in petition bearing MACP No. 67-2021 dated 05.03.2021 filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Out of the total awarded compensation of ₹21,66,000/-; 10% was deducted towards contributory negligence; thereby granting compensation of ₹19,49,400/- to the appellants. The 03 claimants are the: i) 20-year-old widow; ii) 50-year-old mother; and iii) 52-year-old father of deceased-Rupesh, who was aged 22 years 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-Rupesh, had died due to injuries suffered by him in a motor vehicular accident that took place on 29.11.2020 due to rash and negligent driving of car bearing registration No. DL-2C-BB-6248 (hereinafter ‘the offending vehicle’) owned and driven by respondent No.1-Surender Jaglan; and insured by respondent No. 2-Insurance Company. Ld. Tribunal awarded compensation as above along with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing the claim petition till actual realization. Both the respondents were held jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation.

3. Learned counsel for the appellants seeks enhancement of compensation by submitting that income of the deceased has been taken on the lower side as only ₹10,000/- per month. It is submitted that deceased was an agriculturist and Dairy Farmer; and was earning ₹25,000/- per month. However, the learned Tribunal had failed to appreciate the evidence adduced by the appellant-claimants and had assessed the income the deceased on the lower side. Further, it is submitted that deduction of 1/3^rd has wrongly been made. Even multiplier of 18 is wrongly applied by the learned Tribunal. It is contended that the learned Tribunal should have awarded ₹5,00,000/- towards loss of estate; and parental consortium have to be awarded of ₹20,00,000/-. Accordingly, it is prayed that the present appeal may be allowed; and the Award dated 20.09.2024 be modified; and the amount of compensation be enhanced.

4. No other argument is raised on behalf of the appellants. I have heard learned counsel and perused the case file in detail. I find no merit in the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellant-

claimants.

5. Perusal of the record shows that it was the pleaded case of the appellants before the learned Tribunal that prior to the accident deceased was an agriculturist and was also doing dairy farming from which he was earning ₹25,000/- per month. However, claimant No. 1/ widow of the deceased while appearing as PW-1 had deposed that deceased was an ITI Diploma holder. During her cross-examination she stated that she had not brought any record regarding ITI Diploma of her deceased husband.

6. Claimant No. 3/father of the deceased while appearing as PW-2 has made contradictory statement to the effect that deceased was 10+2 pass and had also done ITI. PW-2 had further admitted that he had not brought any record regarding education and income of the deceased. It has also come on record that the deceased was not an incom