IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision :23.09.2025 BIMLA AND ANR.

... APPELLANTS VERSUS MUKESH KUMAR YADAV AND ANR.

...RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PARMOD GOYAL Present: Mr. Krishan Sharma, Bhardwaj, Advocate for the appellants.

****

PARMOD GOYAL, J. (ORAL)

1. The appellants are aggrieved by the award dated 05.05.2023 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Rewari (hereinafter referred to as ‘Tribunal), wherein compensation amounting to Rs. 5,50,170/- was granted on account of the untimely death of Naresh Kumar. The death occurred due to a motor vehicular accident dated 28.01.2022, caused by respondent No. 1 while driving the Scorpio car rashly and negligently bearing registration number RJ-32UA-7727.

2. The learned Tribunal awarded compensation to the claimants, who are the appellants in this case. The claimants-appellants includes the widow of the deceased, Naresh Kumar, and his son, aged 40 years. The following compensation was awarded by the Tribunal:

Sr. Head of compensation Amount No.

1. Loss of dependency to claimant no.1 Rs.4,30,170-00

2. Loss of consortium & companionship to Rs.40,000-00 claimant No. 1

3. Funeral expenses Rs.15,000-00 4. Loss of estate Rs.15,000-00 5. Loss of fatherly love, affection and guidance to Rs.50,000-00 claimant No. 2 Total Rs. 5,50,170-00/-

3. The learned counsel for the appellants has challenged the award passed by the learned Tribunal on the following three grounds:

(1) The learned Tribunal has erroneously taken the income of the deceased as per the minimum wages payable to an unskilled worker in the year 2022 at the rate of Rs. 10,243/-

per month, which is not correct;

(2) The learned Trial Court failed to apply the correct deduction for personal expenses. Although two claimants have applied for compensation therefore the deduction of

50% towards personal expenses is inappropriate;

(3) No compensation for loss of consortium has been awarded to claimant No. 2;

(4) The compensation for loss of consortium has not been paid at the enhanced rate, in accordance with the principles laid down in National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi and others, 2017 (4) RCR (Civil) 1009.

4. In the present case, the appellants have asserted that the deceased, aged 60 years, was engaged in agricultural work and dairy farming, earning Rs. 25,000/- per month. To support this claim, reliance has been placed upon copies of Jamabandi documents Exhibits P-7 to P-9.

5. From Exhibits P-7 to P-9, it is clearly established that the deceased was an agriculturist. However, there is no concrete proof indicating the exact income earned from agriculture, as neither the J-Form nor any other document demonstrating the extent of agricultural produce, dues, or recovery from the sale of produce after deducting expenses has been placed on record.

6. In these circumstances, I do not find any error in the approach adopted by the learned Tribunal in considering the deceased to be unskilled worker and taking the minimum wages payable to an unskilled worker in 2022 as the income of the deceased. There is no material to show that the learned Tribunal’s approach in this regard is erroneous. Similarly, the Tribunal has correctly recorded that the deceased was survived by his widow and an adult son who was independently earning. The argument raised by the learned counsel for the appellants that the Trial Court ought to have applied deduction of one-third towards personal expenses as there were two claimants, is without merit. Claimant-appellant No. 2 is an earning son, aged 40 years, and has rightly been found to be independent of the deceased. He was not financially dependent upon his deceased father and, therefore, cannot be held entitled to compensation under the head of loss of dependency. However, being a legal representative (LR), he is entitled to compensation under the heads of loss of estate and loss of consortium, as laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Manjuri Bera v. The Oriental Insuranc