IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision :29.08.2025 MONIKA AND OTHERS ... APPELLANTS VERSUS RANJIT SINGH AND OTHERS ...RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PARMOD GOYAL Present: Mr. Shakti Mehta, Advocate for the appellants.

****

PARMOD GOYAL, J. (ORAL)

Appellants-claimants, who are the wife, children and mother of deceased have filed present appeal being aggrieved by award dated 08.10.2021 of Rs. 26,28,200/- passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Patiala (hereinafter referred to as ‘Tribunal) alongwith 7% interest on account of death of deceased Goldy in motor vehicle accident on 26.06.2020 by rash and negligent driving of respondent No. 1 offending driver, while driving vehicle No. PB-11-BU-9893.

Appellants have accordingly sought enhancement of compensation.

2. Total compensation of Rs. 26,28,200/- was awarded by learned Tribunal under various heads duly noticed as under: -

Monthly income/annual Rs.12,000/- per month Rs. 12,000x12 income Rs. 1,44,000/- per annum Future prospects 40% Rs. 16,800/-

(Rs.12,000x40%

12000+ 4800)

Deduction on account of 1/4^th Rs. 12,600/-

personal expenses (Number of dependents

4)

Rs. 16,800-4200/-

Loss of income per Rs. 12,600x12 Rs. 1,51,200/-

annum Multiplier 16 Total loss of income Rs. 1,51,200x16 Rs. 24,19,200/-

Loss of estate Rs. 16,500/- Rs. 16,500/- Funeral expenses Rs. 16,500/- Rs. 16,500/- Spousal consortium Rs. 44,000/- Rs. 44,000/- Parental consortium Rs. 44,000/- x 2 Rs. 88,000/- Filial consortium Rs. 44,000/- Rs. 44,000/-

Total consortium awarded by Tribunal Rs. 26,28,200/-

3. In the present case, learned Tribunal has taken income of deceased to Rs. 12000/- per month for the purposes of determining loss of dependency. Deceased was taken to be 32 years old at the time of his death. Future prospects to the extent of 40% were added and taking number of dependents to be 4, 1/4^th was deducted towards personal expenses. As far as addition of 40% as future prospects, award of multiplier of 15 and deduction on account of personal expenses is concerned, the same are in accordance with principles laid down in Smt. Sarla Verma and others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another 2009(6) SCC 121 and National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi and others, 2017 (4) RCR (Civil) 1009

4. The main dispute in the present case is that claimants/appellants are claiming monthly income of deceased to be Rs. 20,000/- per month instead of Rs.

12,000/- taken by learned Tribunal.

5. On consideration, in absence of any material on record except for oral assertion made by appellants, the approach of learned Tribunal not taking Rs.20,000 as monthly income cannot be faulted with. The award of Rs. 12,000/- by learned Tribunal is based upon minimum wages payable to a driver. There is no material to show that deceased was owner of any vehicle as no RC has been placed on record. There is no documentary evidence available on record to show that deceased was earning Rs.20,000/- as being claimed by claimants.

6. The argument of learned counsel for the appellants that the oral assertions of claimant in absence of any rebuttal on behalf of respondents has to be taken by learned Tribunal as income of the deceased. However, adducing evidence is one thing and appreciation of the same is another thing. Merely, because the claimant had led oral evidence regarding income, the same is not binding upon the Court to take the same as income of the deceased. The Courts are bound to appreciate evidence led by parties before it and it is only on appreciation of evidence, it has to accept or reject the same, even though, there is no rebuttal to said evidence from other side. In the present case also, there is no corroboration to the assertions made by claimants, the deceased was earning Rs. 20,000/- and, therefore, no fault with the determination of income as Rs. 12,000/- by the learned Tribunal can be found self serving assertion without any corroborating regarding income has to be ignored. Therefore, quantum of