IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No. 4318 of 2022 (O&M)

Reserved On: 25.09.2025 Pronounced On: 09.10.2025 Sumitra and another ...Appellants Versus Ankit Panwar and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJA Present:- Mr. Ram Pal Verma, Advocate for the appellants-claimants. Mr. D.K. Prajapati, Advocate for respondent No. 3-Insurance Company.

****

HARKESH MANUJA, J.

By way of present appeal, challenge has been laid to an award dated 14.02.2022 passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sonepat (hereinafter to be referred as “the Tribunal”), whereby an amount of Rs. 5,60,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs Sixty Thousand only) as compensation was awarded to the appellants/claimants along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of award till its realization.

FACTS [2] A claim petition came to be filed before the Ld. Tribunal, praying for grant of compensation to the tune of Rs. 25,00,000/- (Rupees twenty five lacs only) on account of death of Himanshu in a vehicular accident which took place on 25.06.2018 while alleging rash and negligent driving of respondent No.1-driver.

[3] After going through the pleadings and evaluating the evidence led by both the parties, learned Tribunal arrived at a conclusion that the accident occurred on account of rash and negligent driving of Ankit Panwar/driver; holding all the respondents jointly and severally liable, which was to be indemnified by the insurance company; awarded compensation in the following manner:-

S.No. Heads of Claim Amount (in Rs.)

1. Compensation Rs. 4,50,000/-

2. Loss of Estate & Funeral Rs. 30,000/-

Expenses

3. Loss of Consortium Rs. 80,000/-

Total Rs. 5,60,000/-

[4] Being aggrieved of the award dated 14.02.2022 passed by the learned Tribunal, the present appeal was preferred by the appellants/claimants for setting aside the award as well as for enhancement of compensation. Facts as specified in the claim petition about the manner of accident and the issue regarding negligence of the driver have been recorded in favour of appellants/claimants by the learned Tribunal, the same not being under challenge; thus, need not be repeated here for the sake of brevity.

ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF APPELLANTS-CLAIMANT(S)

[5] Learned counsel for the appellants/claimants assailed the award by submitting that the deceased (Himanshu) was a student of 4-5 years old at the time of motor vehicular accident, thus, learned Tribunal has awarded a nominal and conventional amount towards the death of the minor child, without appreciating the settled position of law. Accordingly, learned counsel prayed for enhancement of the compensation amount to ensure that the same reflects a just and fair determination, and does not amount to a mere token gesture; considering the irreparable loss suffered by the appellants.

ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT NO. 3-INSURANCE COMPANY [6] Per contra, learned counsel representing respondent No. 3-Insurance Company neither refuted the factum of accident nor even the negligence of the offending vehicle, however submitted that in the facts of the present case, the compensation assessed by the Tribunal called for no interference.

DISCUSSION AND REASONING [7] I have heard learned counsels for the parties and perused the paper-book of the case. I find force in the arguments advanced by learned Counsel for the appellants.

QUESTION OF INCOME ASSESSED [8] In the present case, a perusal of the record indicates that the deceased- Himanshu, at the time of accident, was 4-5 years of age. In such cases, especially, relating to death of a child there is no established or uniform method for determining the income of the victim as no concrete evidence in this regard is possibly available.

[8.1] Under somewhat similar circumstances, this Hon’ble Court in “Maimuna and Ors. Vs. Ibrahim and Ors. reported as

2020 (2) RCR (Civil) has held as under:-

“….. This Court too is in agreement of the said opinion of the learned Single Judge that Rs.30,000/- was held as the notional incom