IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Reserved on: 26.08.2025 Date of decision:28.08.2025 Raj Rani and another ..Appellants Versus Jarnail Singh and others ..Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANDEEP PANNU Present: Ms. Ekta Thakur, Advocate for the appellants Service of respondents no. 1 to 4 is dispensed with vide order dated 21.11.2019 Mr. Vinod Gupta, Advocate for respondent No.5- Insurance Company MANDEEP PANNU, J.

1. This is claimants’ appeal against the award dated 16.02.2018 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Patiala (hereinafter referred to as ‘Tribunal’) with a prayer to modify the amount of compensation. The Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs.9,41,000/- on account of death of Gurnam Singh, in a vehicular accident, which took place on 22.12.2014. The claim petition has been filed on behalf of his widow and minor son. There is no dispute with regard to the correctness of the findings recorded by the Tribunal regarding death of Gurnam Singh in the aforesaid vehicular accident as well as the fact that the deceased died due to rash and negligent driving by Driver of the truck, bearing registration plate no. HR- 55U/0351. Hence, the only issue is with regard to quantum of compensation.

2. Since the factum of the accident is not in dispute, therefore, for the sake of brevity, the facts, as recorded by the Tribunal, in the impugned award, are not being reproduced herein.

3. The compensation awarded by the Tribunal is tabulated as under:-

Sr. Heads Compensation No. awarded

1. Income per annum 80,400/-

(6700x12)

2. Deduction for personal & 80,400-26,800=

Living expenses 53,600 (1/3rd of 80,000 = 26800)

3. Multiplier 13

53600x13 = 6,96,800/-

4. Loss of consortium 40,000/- 5. Loss of estate 15,000/- 6. Funeral expenses 15,000/-

7. Future prospects @ 25% 1,74,200/-

Total Rs.9,41,000/-

4. Learned counsel for the claimants-appellants submits that she does not challenge findings of the Tribunal with regard to grant of future prospects, deduction as well as multiplier applied. However, she submits that the Tribunal has erred in assessing the income of the deceased as Rs.6,700/- per month as per the minimum wages for an unskilled worker in the year 2014 whereas deceased, being an agriculturist, was required to be considered at par with a skilled worker. There is no doubt that even after death of the deceased, the land remained with the claimants-appellants, however, they (being widow lady and minor child) would need to employ a manager to look after the said land. The minimum wages for a skilled worker at the relevant time were Rs.8337/- per month and, hence, the income of the deceased ought to have been assessed as Rs.8337/- per month. She further submits that the amounts awarded by the Tribunal under the heads ‘funeral expenses’, ‘loss of estate’ and ‘loss of consortium’ are not as per the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors. [(2017) 16 SCC 680] and Magma General Insurance Company Limited vs. Nanu Ram alias Chuhru Ram & Ors.

[(2018) 18 SCC 130]

5. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.5- Insurance Company has vehemently argued that sufficient amount towards compensation has already been awarded by the Tribunal and there is no scope for enhancement.

6. This Court has considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties.

7. Since no challenge has been laid down by the learned counsel for the appellants to the future prospects, deduction as well as multiplier as applied by the Tribunal, the same are accordingly maintained.

8. However, while assessing the income of the deceased as Rs.6,700/- per month, the Tribunal has treated him as an unskilled worked whereas he ought to have been considered as a skilled worker, being an agriculturist, possessing land. Moreover, after death of the deceased, there is, however, a possibility that the claimants-appellants (being widow lady and minor child) may be required to engage