IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision : 08.01.2025 Anju Sharma and Others ....Appellants VERSUS Surinder Singh and Others ....Respondents CORAM : HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE ALKA SARIN Present : Mr. Munish Gupta, Advocate for the appellants.

Mr. Suman 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, Hoshiarpur (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Tribunal’) vide award dated 02.05.2019 on account of death of Manoj Kumar @ Manoj Sharma (hereinafter referred to as the ‘deceased’).

2. Since the facts, as recorded in the impugned award passed by the Tribunal, are not in dispute, the same are not being reproduced herein for the sake of brevity.

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

Sr. No. Heads Compensation Awarded

1 Annual income Rs.4,21,781/-

2 Future prospects - 30% [Rs.4,21,781 + 1,26,534] = Rs.5,48,315/-

3 Income after applying Rs.3,96,236/-

deduction @ 1/4^th

4 Multiplier of 14 [Rs. 3,96,236 x 14] = Rs.55,47,304/-

5 Loss of consortium to Rs.40,000/-

wife

6 Funeral expenses Rs.15,000/- 7 Loss of estate Rs.15,000/-

Total Compensation Rs.56,17,304/-

Interest 7% per annum

4. Learned counsel for the claimant-appellants would contend that although it was specifically averred in the claim petitionthat the deceased was working as an executive in the Production Department of Winsome Textile Industries Limited, Chandigarh but the Tribunal has wrongly assessed the annual income of the deceased as per income tax return filed for the financial year 2017-18.He would further contend thatthe evidence led by the claimant- appellants qua the salary being drawn by the deceased at the time of his death has been totally ignored by the Tribunal. Learned counsel for the claimant- appellants has referred to the testimony of Sanjeev Kumar, Senior Manager of Winsome Textile Industries Limited, Chandigarh who stepped into the witness-box as AW2 and stated that he had brought the entire record to show that the deceased - Manoj Kumar - was drawing an annual salary package of Rs.6,12,804/- and this witness proved on record the salary certificate of the deceased as Ex.A4; details of the salary from the date of joining of the deceasedtillhisdeath as Ex.A5; and Form 16-A for theFinancial Years2015- 16, 2016-17 and 2017-18 as Ex.A6 to Ex.A8. Learned counsel for the claimant-appellants would further contend that he does not challenge the deduction, addition of future prospects and multiplier as applied by the Tribunal. However, it has been contended that the amount awarded under the head loss of consortium is not in accordance with law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the claimant-appellants has relied upon the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of 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. Per contra learned counsel for respondent No.3 would contend that the amount of compensation has rightly been awarded by the Tribunal and further that the addition towards future prospects ought to have been 25%, which has erroneously been made as 30%. Learned counsel for the claimant- appellants, at this stage, fairly concedes that the addition towardsloss offuture prospects ought to be 25%.

6. Heard.

7. In the present case the Tribunal has erred in assessing theincome of the deceased on the basis of income tax return for the Financial Year 2016- 17 inasmuch as the evidence produced on record by the appellants i.e. the documents (Ex.A4 to Ex.A8) reveal that the annual salary package of the deceased was Rs.6,12,804/- and no contrary evidence was led by the respondents