IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

229 Date of decision: 13.10.2025 FAO-5430-2016(O&M)

Angrejo & Another ...Appellant(s)

Vs.

Kamal Raj & Others ...Respondent(s)

***

FAO-1320-2017(O&M)

Bharti AXA General Insurance Company Limited ...Appellant(s)

Vs.

Angrejo & Others ...Respondent(s)

***

CORAM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA Present:- Mr. Munish Kumar Garg, Advocate for the appellants in FAO-372-2017 and for respondents in FAO-5430-2016.

Mr. Suvir Dewan, Advocate for respondent No.5 in FAO-5430-2016 and for respondent No.6 in FAO-1320-2017.

***

NIDHI GUPTA, J. FAO-5430-2016 Present appeal has been filed by the claimants seeking enhancement of compensation of Rs.11,60,000/- awarded by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Hisar (hereinafter referred to as ‘the learned Tribunal’) vide Award dated 10.05.2016 passed in MACT Petition No.104 dated 07.10.2014 filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). The 2 claimants are the parents of deceased Mandeep Sharma.

CM-4183-CII-2017 in FAO-1320-2017 This is an application under Section 5 of Limitation Act for condonation of delay of 175 days in filing the appeal.

After going through the contents of the application, which is supported by affidavit of the applicant, the same is allowed subject to all just exceptions and delay of 175 days in filing the present appeal is condoned.

FAO-1320-2017 Present appeal has been filed by the Insurance Company seeking setting aside of the Award dated 10.05.2016 passed by the learned Tribunal whereby MACT Petition No.104 dated 07.10.2014 filed by the claimants/respondents No.1 and 2 under Section 166 of the Act, has been allowed and claimants have been awarded compensation of Rs.11,60,000/-.

Both the above said appeals are being disposed of by this common order as both appeals arise out of the same Award dated 10.05.2016; accident dated 15.08.2014; and parties, facts and offending vehicle in both cases, are same. For the sake of brevity, the parties are being referred to and the facts are being drawn from FAO-5430-2016 titled as “Angrejo & Another Vs. Kamal Raj & Others”, filed by the claimants.

2. Learned Tribunal upon appraisal of pleadings and oral & documentary evidence adduced by the parties concluded that the deceased Mandeep Sharma had died due to the injuries suffered by him in a motor vehicular accident that took place on 15.08.2014 at about 12:35 am due to the rash and negligent driving of motorcycle bearing registration No.TN-01-Y-4203 (hereinafter ‘the offending vehicle’), being driven by respondent No.1, owned by respondent No.2, and insured by respondent No.3/appellant in FAO-1320-2017. Respondents No.1 to 3 were held jointly and severally liable for payment of aforesaid compensation.

3. Learned counsel for the appellants/claimants seeks enhancement of compensation by submitting that income of the deceased has been taken on the lower side as only Rs.12,000/- per month. It is contended that the appellants had duly proven on record that the deceased was earning Rs.20,873/- per month. Therefore, income of the deceased ought to have been taken as Rs.20,873/- per month. It is further submitted that nothing has been added by way of future prospects, and loss of estate. It is accordingly prayed that the present appeal be allowed, and compensation awarded to the claimants be enhanced in above terms.

4. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.5 Insurance Company opposes the submissions made on behalf of the claimants and submits that in actual fact, it is the own pleaded case of the appellants before the learned Tribunal as evident from the Claim Petition that the deceased was drawing salary of only Rs.17,767/- per month. This fact has also been noted by the learned Tribunal in Para 21 of the impugned Award. As such, there is no error in the income as assessed by the Tribunal. It is however, admitted that as per the structured formula enunciated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, future prospects of 40% are lia