SUNENA

2025.07.11 19:36 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

249 FAO-1903-2025(O&M)

Date of decision: 09.07.2025 Anita & Another ...Appellant(s)

Vs.

Rajiv & Others ...Respondent(s)

CORAM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA Present:- Mr. Bhupinder Singh, Advocate for Mr. Namit Khurana, Advocate for the appellants.

***

NIDHI GUPTA, J.

Present appeal has been filed by the claimants seeking enhancement of compensation of Rs.9,30,244/- awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jhajjar (hereinafter referred to as “the Tribunal”) vide Award dated 18.01.2025 passed in MACP-335 dated 13.11.2019 filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”). The 2 claimants are the wife and son of deceased Anoop Singh

2. Ld. Tribunal on the basis of pleadings and oral & documentary evidence adduced before it concluded that deceased Anoop Singh had died due to injuries suffered by him in a motor vehicular accident that took place on 23.08.2019 at about 5:30 am due to the rash and negligent driving of Bolero Car bearing registration No.HR-46E-9285 (hereinafter referred to as “the offending vehicle”) by respondent No.2. The offending vehicle was owned by respondent No.1 and insured by respondent No.3.

3. Learned counsel for the appellants seeks enhancement of compensation by inter alia submitting that income of the deceased has been taken on the lower side as only Rs.8,000/- per month. It is submitted that at the time of accident, deceased Anoop Singh was working with Parle Biscuits Pvt. Ltd. as an Assistant Operator and was drawing salary of about Rs.34,000/- per month as is evident from his Salary Slip (Annexure P1). It is submitted that accordingly, learned Tribunal was in error in taking income of the deceased on the lower side as only Rs.8,000/- per month.

4. Learned counsel further submits that the learned Tribunal has incorrectly made deduction of 1/3^rd towards personal expenses; and consortium has been awarded only to the claimant No.1/wife; whereas consortium ought to have been awarded even to the claimant No.2/son also.

It is accordingly prayed that the impugned Award be modified.

5. No other argument is made on behalf of the appellants.

6. I have heard learned counsel for the appellants and perused the case file in great detail. I find no merit in the submissions made on behalf of the appellants.

7. It has firstly been argued by learned counsel for the appellants that income of the deceased has been taken on the lower side as only ₹8000/– per month; whereas deceased was working as Assistant Operator with Parle Biscuits Pvt. Ltd. from where he was earning about Rs.34,000/- per month. However, record reveals that no evidence to prove the said income was adduced by the appellants before the learned Tribunal. Only a bald statement was made by claimant No.1/wife/PW1 that deceased was earning Rs.34,000/- per month. No documentary evidence was adduced to support the said statement. In fact, even employment of the deceased was not proven by the appellants before the learned Tribunal as the appellants did not produce any appointment letter, joining letter, salary record, EPF record, attendance sheet, etc. to show deceased was working with Parle Biscuits Pvt. Ltd.

8. It had also been pleaded by the claimants before the learned Tribunal that deceased was earning Rs.2 lakh from agriculture sources. However, even agricultural income was not proved as no documents were produced to show that deceased owned any agricultural land, let alone that he was deriving any income from agriculture sources.

9. It was in this background that the learned Tribunal had assessed notional income of the deceased as Rs.8,500/- per month on the basis of Minimum Wages applicable at the relevant time. I find no error in the same.

10. However, before this Court, the appellants have produced ‘Annexure P1’ stated to be the Pay Slip of the deceased for the month of August 2019. On a Court query as to why this Salary Slip was not produced by