IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: February 25, 2025 The New India Assurance Company Limited ...Appellant VERSUS Gurpreet Kaur and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ARCHANA PURI Present: Mr.Pardeep Kumar, Advocate for the appellant.

Respondents No.1 to 6 proceeded against ex-parte.

Service of respondent No.7 dispensed with.

****

ARCHANA PURI, J.

The present appeal has been filed by the appellant-The New India Assurance Company Ltd., thereby, assailing the Award dated 22.02.2017, passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, whereby, compensation was granted, on account of death of Gurmeet Singh, in a motor vehicular accident, which took place on 02.01.2016.

So far as, the factum and manner of taking place of the accident is concerned, the same, as such, is not disputed by the insurance company. In fact, the insurance company has only assailed the Award on the quantum of compensation.

The essential facts, to be noticed, are as follows:-

That, on 02.01.2016, Gurmeet Singh had met with an accident and the same resulted into his death. It is categoric claim of the respondents- claimants that deceased was 28 years, at the time of accident and he was indulging in the agricultural pursuit and indulging in dairy farming and was earning Rs.30,000/- per month.

However, on perusal of the evidence, brought on record and considering the recitals of the Aadhar Card, copy whereof is Ex.P10, learned Tribunal had concluded about the date of birth of Gurmeet Singh to be 01.01.1990 and thus, considering the accident to have taken place on 02.01.2016, the deceased was held to be 26 years old, at the time of accident.

Furthermore, since no evidence was coming forth, with regard to the vocation followed by the deceased, while considering the deceased as un-skilled worker, the prevalent minimum wages of Rs.7976/- per month, were taken as earnings of the deceased, to work upon the compensation and addition of 50% was made, on the count of ‘future prospects’. 1/4th was deducted as ‘personal expenses’ and multiplier of ‘17’ was applied and the compensation was worked upon as Rs.18,30,492/-.

Besides the same, another amount of Rs.25,000/- was granted towards transportation of dead body, funeral and last rites and Rs.1,00,000/- was granted to the widow of the deceased, on the count of ‘loss of consortium’. An amount of Rs.1,00,000/- was also granted towards ‘loss of estate’. Besides the aforesaid, an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- was given to claimant No.2(child)and Rs.50,000/- each to claimants No.3 and 4 (parents), towards ‘loss of love and affection’. Thus, in total, the compensation awarded was Rs.22,55,492/-.

Definitely, as per the prevalent law, the compensation worked upon aforesaid, do call for re-computation.

Before proceeding further, it is pertinent to mention that learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that father of the deceased, is not entitled to any compensation, but however, the submission, so made, is also bereft of merits.

It is pertinent to mention that even though, a person, who may be earning, may not be financially dependent on his son, who has departed from the world, but however, it should be noted that the word 'dependent has a different meaning in different connotation. Some may be dependent in terms of money and others may be dependent in terms of service. Thus, dependency is a relevant criteria to claim compensation for loss of dependency. It necessarily does not mean financial only. It also includes gratuitous service dependency, physical dependency, emotional dependency, psychological dependency, and so on and so forth, which can never be equated in terms of money. Considering the same, even though, the deceased son may not be rendering financial assistance to his father, but however, emotional and psychological dependency upon the young son, by the father, as such, ought to be there and considering the same, the father of the deceased, ought to be paid the compensation. The emo