IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision :24.09.2025 SMT. SHANTI AND OTHERS ... APPELLANTS VERSUS BANSI LAL AND OTHERS ...RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PARMOD GOYAL Present: Mr. Rupender Singh, Advocate and Mr. Devesh Nehra, Advocate for the appellants.

****

PARMOD GOYAL, J.

1. The appellants-claimants are aggrieved by the award of Rs. 50,000/- granted by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Rohtak (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Tribunal’), vide award dated 26.07.2000 being insufficient amount of compensation.

2. The appellants-claimants had filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, seeking compensation on account of loss of dependency due to the death of Randhir Singh in a motor vehicular accident that occurred on 14.06.1997, caused by the rash and negligent driving of respondent No. 1, the driver of the tractor bearing Engine No. 51828204867 and Chassis No.

118118688107.

3. The learned Tribunal decided Issue No. 1 in favour of the claimants, holding that the accident was the result of rash and negligent driving by respondent No. 1. Since no appeal has been preferred by any of the respondents against this finding, the decision on Issue No. 1 has attained finality. However, the claimants-appellants were awarded a sum of Rs. 50,000/- along with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of filing till realization, holding respondent Nos. 1, 3, and 4 jointly and severally liable to pay the said compensation.

4. Learned counsel for the appellants-claimants has contended that the learned Tribunal erred in awarding a meagre compensation of Rs. 50,000/- without taking into account the age and income of the deceased, or applying the appropriate multiplier while assessing the loss of dependency. It is further submitted that no compensation has been awarded under the conventional heads, such as funeral expenses, loss of estate, and loss of consortium.

5. On consideration, I find merit in the contentions raised by learned counsel for the appellants-claimants. At the time of the accident, the deceased was stated to be 60 years old and was working as a driver, as well as selling milk. It was claimed that he was earning Rs. 7,500/- per month from his combined activities of driving, selling milk, and doing agricultural work. However, the assertions regarding the income of the deceased were based solely on the oral testimony of PW-1 and PW-2, with no corroborative evidence. Therefore, the learned Tribunal rightly held that the appellants-claimants have failed to prove the income as well as occupation of the deceased. No driving license, jamabandi, or any other documentary evidence has been produced to establish that the deceased was engaged as an agriculturist, driver or was running a dairy.

6. However, keeping in view the fact that the deceased was an able- bodied person having a family to support, he must be considered to have been earning at least wages equivalent to those of an unskilled worker receiving minimum wages. The minimum wages for an unskilled worker in 1997 were Rs.1,549/- accordingly, the same is taken to be the income of the deceased for the purposes of this claim. Since, as per the claim petition, the deceased was more then 60 years old at the time of the accident, no addition on account of future prospects is justified.

7. The learned Tribunal held the age of the deceased to be 70 years on the ground that no documentary evidence was produced by the claimants- appellants to prove the age of the deceased. Accordingly, his age was taken as stated in the post-mortem report (Ex. PB). However, the claimants had also placed on record a certificate issued by the Superintendent of Police, Karnal, marked as Exhibit ‘D’, wherein the date of birth of the deceased is shown as 01.05.1933, which would make him approximately 64 years old at the time of the accident. In light of both documents, none of which can be held fully reliable, the age of the deceased is taken to be betw