IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO-9505-2014 Date of decision: 11.09.2025 Chameli and others ...Appellants Versus Ashu Rajput and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS BAHL Present: Mr. Saurabh Bahmani, Advocate for Mr. Ramanpreet Singh Bara, Advocate for the appellants.

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

****

VIKAS BAHL, J. (ORAL)

1. Widow and eight children, out of which five are minor, of the deceased-Eadal Singh @ Kharak Singh have filed the present appeal for enhancement of the amount of compensation awarded on account of death of Eadal Singh @ Kharak Singh, which had taken place in an accident that had occurred on 08.01.2013.

2. The only issue which arises for consideration in the present appeal is as to how much additional amount of compensation the present appellants are entitled to. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, SAS Nagar, Mohali (hereinafter to be referred as “the Tribunal”) had granted a total compensation of Rs.15,21,000/- along with interest @ 6% per annum.

3. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that in the present case, no amount on account of loss of future estate had been granted by the Tribunal and the present appellants should be granted Rs.18,000/- on the said account. It is further submitted that on account of loss of consortium, only an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- had been awarded, although there were nine claimants who were all dependent upon the deceased and thus, total amount of Rs.4,32,000/- (Rs.48,000/- x 9) should have been granted on the said account to the present appellants. It is further submitted that the present appellants had led affirmative evidence to show that the deceased was employed by Harjit Singh @ Khazan Singh on a monthly salary of Rs.9,000/- and had even produced the said employer Harjit Singh @ Khazan Singh in the witness box who was running a Saw Mill at Banur and was also an owner of 45 acres of agricultural land and who had made a statement in favour of the present appellants to the effect that the deceased was earning Rs.9,000/- per month yet the Tribunal held the deceased to be earning Rs.6,000/- per month. It is submitted that in view of the said facts and circumstances, monthly income of the deceased should be taken as Rs.9000/- per month and not Rs.6,000/- per month. In support of his arguments, learned counsel for the appellants has relied upon the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in cases titled as Sarla Verma (Smt.) and others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another reported as (2009) 6 SCC 121, National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and others reported as (2017) 16 SCC 680, and Magma General Insurance Company Limited Vs. Nanu Ram alias Chuhru Ram and others reported as (2018) 18 SCC 130

4. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.3-

Insurance Company has submitted that in the present case, future prospects, which the Tribunal had granted, was granted by taking an addition of 50% of the income of the deceased whereas since the age of the deceased was 39 years at the time of the accident, thus, the present appellants should have been granted future prospects at the rate of 40% in accordance with settled law. It is further submitted that funeral expenses to the extent of Rs.25,000/- had been awarded by the Tribunal which also deserves to be reduced to Rs.18,000/- as per Pranay Sethi and others’s case (Supra). It is further submitted that on account of loss of love and affection, an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- had been awarded, however, as per Pranay Sethi and others’s case (Supra), no amount on account of loss and affection is to be granted. It is submitted that as far as the income of the deceased is concerned, the highest income that can be claimed by the present appellants in view of the fact that there are nine claimants is Rs.7000/- per month and the claim made by the present appellants of Rs.9,000/- per month is highly excessive.

5. Learned counsel for the appellants, after