IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Reserved on : 01.09.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 12.09.2025 The Oriental Insurance Company Limited ......Appellant Vs.

Gobinda and others ......Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA Present : Mr. Vijay Kumar Garg, Advocate, for the appellant.

****

SUDEEPTI SHARMA J. (ORAL)

1. The present appeal has been preferred against the award dated 20.03.2025 passed in the claim petition filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Gurugram (for short, ‘the Tribunal’), wherein the appellant-Insurance company was fastened with the liability to pay the compensation to the claimants/respondents No.1 to 3 to the tune of Rs.25,92,000/- along with interest @ 7.5% per annum.

2. As sole issue for determination in the present appeal is confined to quantum of compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal, a detailed narration of the facts of the case is not required to be reproduced and is skipped herein for the sake of brevity.

SUBMISSIONS OF THE LEARNED COUNSELS FOR THE PARTIES 3. Learned counsel for the appellant/Insurance company contends that the learned Tribunal erred in assessing the income of the deceased and has awarded excessive amount under the conventional heads, while calculating compensation. Therefore, he prays that the present appeal be allowed and award be modified/reduced.

4. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the whole record of this case with his able assistance.

5. The relevant portion of the award dated 20.03.2025 passed by the learned Tribunal is reproduced as under:-

“26. To prove age of the deceased the claimants have relied upon copy of Identity Card, Ex.P-4, of the deceased issued by Haryana Kaushal Rozgar Nigam Limited, wherein date of birth of the deceased has been recorded as 10.08.1977. The accident had taken place on 23.01.2024. If the above mentioned date of birth of deceased is taken into consideration, the age of deceased at the time of accident/death comes out to be 46 years 5 months 13 days. However, in post mortem report, the age of deceased Lalita is mentioned as 45 years and in the petition, her age is mentioned as 46 years. This Tribunal is of the view that identity card issued by any authority cannot be considered as age proof. Therefore, taking into consideration the age as mentioned in the post-mortem report, in the petition as well as in the identity card of deceased, it is safe to presume the age of deceased Lalita for the age group of 46 to 50 years for the purpose to assess the compensation. 27. As far as occupation & income of the deceased is concerned, it is the case of the claimants that the deceased was working as Sweeper at ESI Dispensary, Basai Road, Gurugram under Haryana Kaushal Rozgar Nigam Limited and drawing 18,400/-

₹

per month as salary. To prove the said employment, the claimants have examined Sandeep clerk posted in Basai ESI Dispensary, Gurugram as PW-1 who has deposed that deceased Lalita was appointed as a sweeper through Haryana Kaushal Rozgar Nigam Limited vide deployment offer letter Ex.P-1. This witness has proved the salary slips of deceased for the months of November 2023 and December 2023 Ex.P-2 and Ex.P-3 and identity card of deceased issued by Haryana Kaushal Rozgar Nigam Limited Ex.P-4. The aforesaid evidence has gone unrebutted and unchallenged as no contrary evidence had been produced on record by the respondents to rebut the claim of the claimants with regard to employment and income of the deceased. Hence, it is amply proved that the deceased used to work as sweeper with ESI Dispensary Basai Road, Gurugram. As such, in my considered opinion, it is proper to consider her last ₹

drawn salary as 18,400/- as was received by her in the month of December 2023. If the above mentioned figure is taken as monthly income of the deceased, her annual ₹ ₹

income comes out to be 2,20,800/- ( 18,400/- X 12). 28. The loss of dependency further consi