257 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision : 26.08.2025 Jaswanti and Others ... Appellants Versus Angad and Others ... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ALKA SARIN Present : Mr. Kanverpal Singh Gill, Advocate for the appellants.

Mr. D.K. Prajapati, Advocate for respondent No.3.

ALKA SARIN, J. (Oral)

1. Present appeal has been preferred by the claimant-appellants aggrieved by the award dated 22.05.2018 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Rohtak (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Tribunal’) qua the quantum of compensation and the income of Jai Bhagwan (hereinafter referred to as the ‘deceased’) as assessed by the Tribunal.

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 Monthly income ₹7,500/-

2 Future prospects - 25% [₹7,500 + 1,875] = ₹9,375/-

5 Loss of estate ₹15,000/-

4. Learned counsel for the claimant-appellants would contend that the deceased was 48 years of age at the time of the accident and was working as Supervisor in Holistic HR & Security Pvt. Ltd., Gurugram and to prove the said fact Dinesh, Administration Officer of the said Company was examined as PW3. He placed on record the documents (Ex.P9 to Ex.P12) including appointment letter of the deceased and the salary certificate showing the salary of the deceased as ₹23,054/- per month. The Tribunal rejected the same holding that the same seemed to be procured documents as the accident took place on 30.06.2017 and the appointment letter was dated 01.06.2017. Hence, thesalaryof the deceased ought to have been assessed as ₹23,054/-per month. It is further the contention that the compensation awarded under the conventional heads as well as under the head ‘loss of consortium’ is not in consonance with the settled law. In support of his contention, he 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 has contended that Dinesh, Administration Officer, Holistic HR & Security Pvt. Ltd. Gurugram while appearing as PW3 has admitted that experience was required for appointment as a Supervisor in their Company. However, in the present case there is no evidence qua the experience held by the deceased hence the income of the deceased has rightly been assessed by the Tribunal and that sufficient amount of compensation has already been granted and there is no scope for any further enhancement.

6. Heard.

7. In the present case the deceased was 48 years of age at the time of the accident. PW3 Dinesh, Administration Officer of Holistic HR & Security Pvt. Ltd., Gurugram appeared in the witness-box and produced on record documents Ex.P9 to Ex.P12, which included the appointment letter and the salary certificate of the deceased showing salary of the deceased to be ₹23,054/- per month. A perusal of the documents reveals that the appointment letter (Ex.P9) bears the thumb impression of the deceased. There is not an iota of evidence which was led by the Insurance Company to even remotely suggest that the said document was forged and fabricated or this was not the thumb impression of the deceased. The argument of the learned counsel for respondent No.3 that the documents were procured, as held by the Tribunal, cannot be accepted in