334 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision : 10.09.2025 SANGITA AND ORS .... Appellants VERSUS NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. AND ORS .... Respondents CORAM : HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE ALKA SARIN Present : Mr. Surinder Gaur, Advocate for the appellants.

Mr. R.C. Gupta, Advocate for respondent No.1.

ALKA SARIN, J. (ORAL)

1. The present appeal has been preferred by the claimant-appellants aggrieved by the award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bhiwani (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Tribunal’) vide award dated 01.07.2023. The only challenge in the present case is to the quantum of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal vide the impugned award.

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 income of the deceased was proved to be ₹15,000 per month. The deceased was working with Hind Motors and the Proprietor of Hind Motors, Loharu Road, Bhiwani, namely, Hem Raj Sharma, stepped into the witness box as PW-6 and proved the extract of attendance register showing the deceased – Rajesh Kumar – to be his employee. He further proved the salary certificate (Ex.PW6/B) showing his salary to be ₹15,000 per month. However, the same was rejected by the Tribunal only on account that there was no evidence on the record to show that the salary was ever credited to his account. It is further the contention of the learned counsel that the Tribunal has assessed the income as ₹8,000 per month without applying any yardstick even though the matriculation certificate was produced on the record as (Ex.P10). Learned counsel would further contend that even if the income was to be taken as that of a skilled worker, the same was ₹9,585 per month. It is still further the contention of the learned counsel that in the present case the number of dependents were 5 at the time of the death of Rajesh Kumar as his parents were also alive, namely, Hari Ram and Savitri Devi who were also arrayed as claimants in the claim petition. However, during the pendency of the claim petition, both died and their names were delated vide order dated 20.05.2023. Hence, it is the argument of the learned counsel that at the time of death of Rajesh Kumar, the number of claimants were 5 and as such deduction of 1/4^th ought to have been made. Learned counsel would yet further contend that though the claimant-appellants do not challenge the addition made towards future prospects and the multiplier applied, however, the amounts awarded under the conventional heads i.e. loss of estate and funeral expenses and under the head loss of consortium are not in consonance with 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], 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]

5. Per contra, the learned counsel for respondent No.1-Insurance Company would contend that the income has rightly been assessed in the absence of any evidence on the record and that the Tribunal has rightly held that there was no evidence on the record to show that the salary was even credited to the account of the deceased. It is further the contention of the learned counsel that in the present case only 3 claimants were left as the mother and the father had since died therefore deduction of 1/3^rd has rightly been made. Learned counsel has further vehemently argued that sufficient amount has already been awarded as compensation in the present case and that there is no scope of any enhancement.

6. Heard.

7. In the present case the Tribunal has assessed the income of the deceased as ₹8