IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 07.07.2025 Rajni Saini and others ...Appellant(s)

Vs.

Gurmukh Singh and others ...Respondent(s)

CORAM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA Present:- Mr. Manglesh Kumar, Advocate for Mr. Shakti Mehta, Advocate for the appellants.

Ms. Manvi Verma, Advocate for Mr. Rajneesh Malhotra, Advocate for respondent No.3-Insurance Co.

***

NIDHI GUPTA, J.

The present appeal has been filed by the claimants seeking enhancement of compensation of Rs.23,98,374/- awarded by the ld. Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Mohali (for short “the learned Tribunal”) vide Award dated 11.01.2013 passed in MACT Case No. 13 dated 08.02.2010 filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The above said compensation was awarded along with interest @ 6% per annum. All the respondents were held jointly and severally liable to pay the amount of compensation. The 4 claimants are the widow, one son and parents of the deceased Sohan Lal, who was about 26 years old at the time of accident.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the learned Tribunal on the basis of evidence adduced by the parties, concluded that the deceased Sohan Lal had died due to the injuries suffered by him in a motor vehicular accident that took place on 01.01.2010 due to the rash and negligent driving of a Tractor Trolley bearing registration No. PB-65-J-3090 (hereinafter referred to as “the offending vehicle”) being driven by respondent No.1; owned by respondent No.2; and insured by respondent No.3.

3. Learned counsel for the appellants seeks enhancement of compensation on the ground that future prospects have been awarded @ 30% however, keeping in view the age of the deceased as 26 years only, future prospects @ 40% ought to have been awarded. It is further submitted that claimant No.3/father of the deceased has not been taken as dependent upon the deceased; and, therefore, deduction of 1/3rd has been wrongly made. Learned counsel contends that father of the deceased was dependent upon the deceased; and therefore, deduction of one fourth or two have been made towards personal expenses. Furthermore, income of the deceased has been taken on the lower side. It is accordingly prayed that the present appeal be allowed; and compensation be enhanced.

4. Learned counsel for respondent No.3-insurance company vehemently opposes submissions made on behalf of the appellants and submits that impugned Award suffers from no error and present appeal deserves to be dismissed. It is, however, conceded that as per the law laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court, future prospects ought to have been added @ 40% and not 30%.

5. No other argument is raised on behalf of the parties.

6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file in great detail.

7. Brief facts of the case as set out in the claim petition are that on 1.1.2010, Sohan Lal and his friend Lakhwinder Singh were returning from Dera Bassi on motorcycle No.PB-70-B-5187 driven by Lakhwinder Singh and at about 9.15 p.m, when they reached near HPL Factory village Bhagwas, their motorcycle was hit by the tractor trolley bearing No. PB- 65-J-3090, which came from the opposite side. The tractor trolley was being driven by respondent no.1 in a rash and negligent manner. The accident took place due to the rash and negligent driving of the tractor trolley by respondent No.1. Maninder Singh brother of the deceased Sohan Lal was coming on his separate motorcycle bearing No.PB-70-B- 2633 and he witnessed the said accident. Both the injured were taken to GMCH Sector 32 Chandigarh. However, Sohan Lal had breathed his last on the way to the hospital. The claimants alleged that at the time of his death, the deceased Sohan Lal was aged about 26 years. He was serving as commission agent in RMP (Infotech Resource Money power) and used to earn Rs.40,000/- per month. Beside this income, he used to earn Rs.15,000/-as agriculture income from 5.5 acres of land held by him. FIR No.1 dated 2.1.2010 und