IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH IOIN-1-FAO-4184-2010 in Date of decision : 08.09.2025 Sushila and others ...Appellants Versus Rajiv Kalia and another ...Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE HARPREET KAUR JEEWAN Present: Mr. Abhay Pratap Singh Chauhan, Advocate and Mr. Deepak Choudhary, Advocate, for the appellants.

Mr. Aseem Aggarwal, Advocate, for respondent No.2-National Insurance Company.

HARPREET KAUR JEEWAN, J. (Oral)

1. The present appeal has been preferred by the claimant- appellants aggrieved against the quantum of compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Tribunal’) vide award dated 08.02.2010.

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 reproduced herein for the sake of brevity.

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

Sr. No. Heads Compensation Awarded

1. Monthly income Rs.11,250/-

2. Annual income [Rs.11,250 x 12] = Rs.1,35,000/-

3. Deduction 1/3^rd [Rs.1,35,000 – Rs.45,000] = Rs.90,000 4. Future prospects @ 30% [Rs.90,000 + 27,000 ] = Rs.1,17,000/-

5. Multiplier of ‘11’ [Rs.1,17,000 x 11] = Rs.12,87,000/-

6. Funeral expenses Nil 7. Loss of estate Nil

8. Loss of consortium Nil Total Compensation Rs.12,87,000/-

Interest @ 6% per annum

4. Learned counsel for the claimant-appellants contends that the monthly income of the deceased has not been properly assessed by the Tribunal, as the allowances, including House Rent Allowance (HRA); City Compensation Allowance (CCA); and Medical Allowance (MA) were not included while determining the income of the deceased. Reference has been made to the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Sunil Sharma Vs. Bachitar Singh, 2011(2) Apex Court Judgments (SC) 71, wherein it was held that the deductions made by the Tribunal on account of HRA, CCA and MA are on wrong premise and should have been taken into consideration for calculating the income of the deceased. Learned counsel further contends that there are 04 dependents after the deceased, and as such, deduction at the rate of 1/4^th instead of 1/3^rd should have been done. Similarly, keeping in view the age of the deceased, multiplier of ‘14’ should have been applied by the Tribunal. It is further pointed out that the Tribunal has not awarded any amount towards ‘Loss of Estate’, ‘Funeral Expenses’ and ‘Loss of Consortium’. Cites National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi && OOrrss..,, ((22001177)) 1166 SSCCCC 668800; MMaaggmmaa GGeenneerraall IInnssuurraannccee CCoommppaannyy 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. Learned counsel for respondent No.2-Insurance Company has not disputed this fact that allowances (HRA, CCA & MA) have not been taken into consideration while determining the monthly income of the deceased. However, it is argued that sufficient amount has already been awarded by the Tribunal and there is no scope for enhancement of the same.

6. I have considered the aforesaid submissions and perused the paper-book.

7. The Tribunal has given reference to the pay-slip, Ex.P-2 in para No.16 of the Award. As per the said pay-slip, the total salary of the deceased was Rs.13,457/-, which also included CCA @ Rs.120/- p.m.; MA @ Rs.250/- p.m. and HRA @ Rs.1,692/- p.m. In view of the decision in Sunil Sharma (supra), the said allowances are to be considered while determining the income of the deceased and as such, the income of the deceased is considered as Rs.13,312/- (Rs.11250/- +

Rs.120/- + Rs.250/- + Rs.1,692/-).

8. It is not disputed that 04 claimants are the legal representatives of the deceased. Claimant No.1 is widow; claimant Nos.2 & 3 are the minor children; whereas claimant No.4 mother of the deceased. As such, the deduction of 1/4^th of the amount is to be made while calculating the dependency of t