IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Reserved on : 27.08.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 12.09.2025 The Oriental Insurance Company Limited ......Appellant Vs.

Smt. Mathri Devi and others ......Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA Present : Mr. Sehaj Mahajan, Advocate, for Mr. Raj Kumar Bashamboo, Advocate, for the appellant.

Mr. Aman Arora, Advocate, for Mr. Mukesh Yadav, Advocate, for respondents No.3 & 4.

****

SUDEEPTI SHARMA J. (ORAL)

1. The present appeal has been preferred against the award dated 23.10.2015 passed in the claim petition filed under Sections 166/140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Narnaul (for short, ‘the Tribunal’), wherein the appellant-Insurance company was held liable to pay the compensation to the claimants/respondents No.1 and 2 to the tune of Rs.14,37,200/- along with interest @ 9% per annum on the ground of quantum of compensation to be on the higher side.

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. Per contra, learned counsel for respondents No.3 and 4 argues on the lines of the award passed by the learned Tribunal.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the whole record of this case.

6. The relevant portion of the award dated 23.10.2015 passed by the learned Tribunal is reproduced as under:-

“19. To prove this issue, learned counsel for the petitioners took me to the testimony of PW2 Smt. Mathri Devi. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that it is clear from the statement of PW2 that deceased Amar Singh was earning Rs.20,000/- per month from the salary as well as agriculture and he was 23 years of age at the time of death.

20. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents have submitted that income of the deceased has not been proved.

21. Although, PW2 Smt. Mathi has deposed that deceased Amar Singh was earning Rs.20,000/- per month from his salary as well as by doing the agricultural work. But this tribunal is of the view that except the bald statement of the petitioner-Smt. Mathi Devi there is no evidence that the deceased Amar Singh was earning Rs.20,000/- per month. The State Government has issued notification/circulars time to time for fixing the minimum wages to be paid daily wagers. In the present case, death occurred 21.11.2014, therefore, this court can take judicial notice of the notification/circulars issued by the State Government and accordingly fixed the monthly income of the deceased Amar Singh as Rs.8, 100/- per month. As minimum wages fixed for the year 2014-2015 was Rs.8,100/- per month. Keeping in view the settled law in the case of Rajesh and others Versus Rajbir Singh & anothers 2013 (4) Law Herald (SC) 3006, 50% of the income assessed is added and so his monthly income comes to Rs.12,150/- (Rs.8100+Rs.4050/). The petitioner while appearing as PW2 has deposed that they were dependent upon the income of the deceased. The deceased was unmarried and it is expected that deceased Amar Singh was spending 50% of his income for his personal expenses. Accordingly, 1/2 of the monthly income assessed by this tribunal is deducted towards personal expenses and so after deducting 1/2 of his income, his monthly dependency comes to Rs.6,075/- and annual dependency comes to Rs.72,900/- (Rs.6075x12). As per PMR Ex.P7, the age of deceased was 24 years at the time of his death. As per the settled law, multiplier of 18 i