IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision : 02.09.2025 KULDIP KAUR AND ORS. .... Appellants VERSUS JATINDERPAL SINGH AND ORS .... Respondents CORAM : HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE ALKA SARIN Present : Mr. Manoj K. Sharma, Advocate for the appellants.

Mr. Punit Jain, Advocate for respondent No.3.

ALKA SARIN, J. (ORAL)

1. The present appeal has been preferred by the claimant-appellants aggrieved by the quantum of compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Hoshiarpur (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Tribunal’) vide award dated 02.01.2019.

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

3. The Tribunal in the present case had awarded the following compensation :

4. Learned counsel for the claimant-appellants would contend that the deceased in the present case was a 58 years old man who owned 400 Kanal of land which is reflected in the jamabandi (Ex.A2 and Ex.A3). It is further the contention of the learned counsel that the deceased was looking after the agricultural work therefore his income, as assessed by the Tribunal, is not proper. Though the land remained with the claimant-appellants, however, they would need to employ a manager to look after the said land. Learned counsel has relied upon the judgment in the case of State of Haryana & Anr. vs. Jasbir Kaur & Ors. [2003 (4) RCR (Civil) 140] to contend that at least the minimum wages for a skilled worker ought to have been awarded. Learned counsel would further contend that no addition has been made towards future prospects which ought to have been 10% as per the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd.

vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors. [(2017) 16 SCC 680]. It is still further the contention of the learned counsel that the amounts awarded under the conventional heads and under the head loss of consortium are not in consonance with the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra), 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]. Learned counsel has yet further contended that no interest has been awarded and it is only if the amount was not paid within a period of 3 months that the interest @ 6% would be paid.

5. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.3-Insurance Company would contend that the income has rightly been assessed as ₹8,000 per month. It is further the contention of the learned counsel that the amount so awarded was deposited within the period of 3 months and as such the interest has rightly not been awarded.

6. Heard.

7. The deceased in the present case admittedly owned 400 Kanal of land as is evident from the jamabandis (Ex.A2 and Ex.A3). It has come in evidence that the deceased was doing agricultural work and there is no evidence contrary thereto. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Jasbir Kaur (supra) has held as under :

“8. It is clear on a bare reading of the Tribunal's decision as affirmed by the High Court that no material was placed before the former to prove as to what was the income. As rightly contended by learned counsel for the appellants, there was not even any material adduced to show type of land which the deceased possessed. The matter can be approached from a different angle. The land possessed by the deceased still remains with the claimants as his legal heirs. There is however a possibility that the claimants may be required to engage persons to look after agriculture. Therefore, the normal rule about the deprivation of income is not strictly applicable to cases where agricultural income is the source. Attendant circumstances have to be considered. Furthermore, there was no material before the Tribunal to arrive at the figure of Rs.4500 per month. No reason