IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

241 Date of decision : 28.08.2025

1. FAO-3798-2017 (O&M)

Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd. ...... Appellant versus Kalasho and others ...... Respondents

2. FAO-7867-2017 (O&M)

Kalasho and others ...... Appellants versus Lakhwinder Singh and others ...... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ JAIN Present: Mr. Punit Jain, Advocate for the appellant in FAO-3798-2017 and for respondent No.3 in FAO-7867-2017.

Mr. Vishal Jassal, Advocate for the appellants in FAO-7867-2017 and for the respondents in FAO-3798-2017 ****

PANKAJ JAIN, J. (Oral)

1. By way of instant order, I intend to dispose off the afore captioned two appeals directed against the award passed by the MACT, Karnal dated 18.02.2017.

2. The insurance company as well as claimants both are aggrieved of the findings recorded by the Tribunal on quantum of compensation payable to the claimants. Counsel for the insurance company submits that Jagpal Singh @ Jagga Ram was 50 years of age at the time of death. Tribunal ought to have awarded 25% future prospects instead of 30%. Mr. Jain further submits that out of three children who are claimants, two are major and married. Married daughter since was residing at her in-laws house, deduction ought to have been 1/3rd on account of dependency and not 1/4th. Further refers to item No.7 and 9 as mentioned in table which is part of para No. 34, to submit that Rs.5 lakh has been awarded under two different heads, i.e. loss of consortium as well as compensation on account of love and affection, which in the light of ratio of law laid down in ‘National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi and others’, (2017) 16 SCC 680 ought to have been Rs.48,400/- for each of the claimants.

3. Counsel for the claimants on the other hand, submits that the salary of the deceased was proved on record by examining Gulab Singh s/o Mahabir Singh partners of Som Chemical, village Kachhwa, Karnal. The deceased was employed as a Recovery Agent and salary certificate as well as attendance register were proved on record, Tribunal erred in taking salary of deceased to be Rs.10,000/-. Further submits that standard deduction of 10% of the income-tax has been wrongly applied.

Nothing has been paid for loss of estate.

4. Having heard counsel for the parties and having carefully perused the records of the case, this Court finds that the Tribunal erred in ignoring cogent pieces of evidence with regard to salary of the deceased. Employment of the deceased was proved by way of attendance record Ex.P2. Salary certificate Ex.P1 also stands proved. Gulab Singh, one of the partners, i.e. employer of the deceased, entered the witness box and testified to prove the aforesaid documents. In view thereof, the Tribunal erred in taking the salary of the deceased as Rs.10,000/- instead of Rs.14,500/- which was proved on record. Accordingly, the monthly salary of the deceased is taken as Rs.14,500/-. Keeping in view the age of the deceased, 25% of future prospects need to be added. In order to assess the dependency, Tribunal has rightly applied cut of 1/4.

5. The plea raised by Mr. Jain with respect to deduction of 1/3rd for the reason that the married daughter is residing at her in-laws house sans merit and cannot be accepted. While dealing with the issue of deduction for personal and living expenses, Supreme Court in Sarla Verma v. DTC reported as (2009) 6 SCC 121 observed as under:-

“25. We have already noticed that the personal and living expenses of the deceased should be deducted from the income, to arrive at the contribution to the dependants. No evidence need be led to show the actual expenses of the deceased. In fact, any evidence in that behalf will be wholly unverifiable and likely to be unreliable. The claimants will obviously tend to claim that the deceased was very frugal and did not have any expensive habits and was spending virtually the entire income on the family. In some cases, it may be so. No claimant would ad