IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision : 04.07.2025 Sarbari and Others ....Appellants VERSUS Amjad and Others ....Respondents CORAM : HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE ALKA SARIN Present : Mr. Rakesh Dhiman, Advocate for the appellants.

Mr. Dhruv Mittal, Advocate for respondent No.1.

None for respondent No.2.

Mr. Vishwajit Bedi, Advocate for respondent No.3.

ALKA SARIN, J. (Oral)

1. The present appeal has been preferred by the claimants aggrieved by the quantum of compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Gurugram (hereinafter referred to as ‘Tribunal’) vide the impugned award dated 23.07.2018.

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

3. The Tribunal had awarded the following compensation :

Sr. No. Heads Compensation Awarded

1 Notional annual income ₹40,000/-

2 Multiplier of 15 [₹40,000 x 15] = ₹6,00,000/-

3 Loss of love and affection ₹70,000/-

and funeral expenses Total Compensation ₹6,70,000/-

Interest 7% per annum

4. Learned counsel for the claimant-appellants would contend that the Tribunal has wrongly assessed the notional income of the deceased child aged 13 years as ₹40,000/- per annum and further applied a multiplier of ‘15’ instead of ’18’ and has also not granted any addition towards loss of future prospects. Learned counsel for the claimant-appellants has relied upon judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of Kajal vs. Jagdish Chand & Ors. [2020 (2) RCR (Civil) 27], Baby Sakshi Greola vs. Manzoor Ahmad Simon & Anr. [2025 (1) RCR (Civil) 238] and Karuna Parmar vs. Prakash Sinha & Ors. [Civil Appeal No.2317 of 2025 arising out of SLP (C) No.6428 of 2023 decided 11.02.2025] to contend that the income of the deceased ought to have been assessed according to the minimum wages applicable to a skilled worker at the relevant point of time and a multiplier of ‘18’ is applicable instead of ‘15’ besides an addition of 40% towards loss of future prospects. Learned counsel for the claimant- appellants would further contend that the amount awarded under the conventional heads as well as under the head ‘loss of consortium’ is not in accordance with the law as laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in 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. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company would contend that a sufficient amount of compensation has already been granted and there is no scope of any enhancement.

6. Heard.

7. In the present case, admittedly, the deceased was a child of ‘13’ years of age and the Tribunal has assessed his notional income @ Rs.40,000/- per annum and has applied a multiplier of ‘15’. No addition has been made towards loss of future prospects. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Baby Sakshi Greola (supra) while relying upon the case of Kajal (supra) had assessed the notional income of a 7 years’ old child on the basis of minimum wages payable to a skilled worker and applied a multiplier of ’18’. Further, in the case of Karuna Parmar (supra), yet again Hon’ble Supreme Court while relying upon Baby Sakshi Greola (supra), awarded compensation in the case of a 6 years’ old child, who had died in an accident on 07.03.2014, as per the minimum wages applicable to a skilled worker in the year 2014 and had applied a multiplier of ‘18’. In view thereof, this Court deems it appropriate to assess the income of the deceased child as per the minimum wages applicable to a skilled worker prevailing at the relevant point of time, which were ₹9,343/- per month. Keeping in view the age of the deceased child, a deduction of 50% would be applicable besides an addition of 40% towards loss of future prospects. Further, in view of the law laid down in the above referred cases, a mul