299 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision : 17.09.2025 NAZIRA AND ANR. .... Appellants VERSUS NARINDER AND ORS .... Respondents CORAM : HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE ALKA SARIN Present : Mr. Manish Verma, Advocate for the appellants.

Mr. Abhinav Singla, Advocate for respondent No.2.

Mr. Raj Kumar, Advocate for respondent No.3.

ALKA SARIN, J. (ORAL)

1. The present appeal has been preferred by the claimant-appellants aggrieved by the quantum of compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Panchkula (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Tribunal’) vide award dated 03.08.2021.

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, who was about 14 years of age, has been assessed notionally as ₹6,000 per month (₹72,000 per annum) which ought to have been assessed as per the minimum wages applicable to a skilled worker prevalent at the time of the accident which were ₹10,200 per month. In support of his arguments, learned counsel for the claimant-appellants has relied upon the judgment passed in the case of Kajal vs. Jagdish Chand & Ors. [2020 (2) RCR (Civil) 27] which was later followed in the case of Baby Sakshi Greola vs. Manzoor Ahmad Simon & Anr. [2025 (1) RCR (Civil) 238]. Learned counsel would further contend that though the claimant- appellants do not challenge the deduction, the addition made towards the future prospects and the multiplier as applied by the Tribunal, however, the amounts awarded under the conventional heads i.e. funeral expenses and loss of estate and under the head loss of consortium are not in accordance 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 respondents No.2 and 3 have 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. The argument of the learned counsel for the claimant-appellants that the income of the deceased ought to have been assessed as that of a skilled worker deserves to be accepted. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Baby Sakshi Greola (supra), while relying upon the case of Kajal (supra), assessed the notional income of a 7-year-old child, who had received injuries, on the basis of minimum wages payable to a skilled worker. Still further, the Hon’ble Supreme Court recently in the case of Karuna Parmar vs. Prakash Sinha & Ors. [2025 (1) TAC 730], yet again relying on Baby Sakshi Greola (supra), awarded the compensation in the case of a 6-year-old child, who had died in an accident which occurred on 07.03.2014, as per the minimum wages applicable for a skilled worker in the year 2014. The minimum wages of a skilled worker at the time of the accident i.e. 21.02.2019 were ₹10,200 per month. Hence, the income of the deceased is assessed as ₹10,200 per month.

Since there is no challenge to the deduction, the addition made towards the future prospects and the multiplier as applied by the Tribunal, the same are accordingly maintained.

8. Further, the amounts awarded under the conventional heads and under the head loss of consortium are not in consonance with the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Hence, as per the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of Pranay Sethi (supra), Magma General Insurance Company Limited (supra) and N. Jayasree (supra), the claimant-appellants would be entitled to ₹18,000 (₹15,000 +