114 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision : 13.10.2025 MANISH KUMAR AND ORS. ......Appellant(s)

VERSUS ANUBHAV KATARIA AND ORS.

........Respondent(s)

CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE HARPREET KAUR JEEWAN Present: Mr. Hardip Singh, Advocate for the appellants.

Mr. Sandeep Kumar Rawal, Advocate for Mr. Rakesh Gupta, Advocate For respondents No.1 and 2.

Mr. Pradeep Kumar, Advocate For respondent No.3-Insurance Company.

HARPREET KAUR JEEWAN, J. (Oral)

1. The present appeal has been preferred by the claimants- appellants aggrieved against the quantum of compensation awarded by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Patiala (hereinafter referred to as the “Tribunal”) vide award dated 22.11.2021.

2. The claimants-appellants who are the children and mother of Hari Krishan (since deceased) filed the claim petition seeking compensation on account of death of Sh. Hari Krishan in the Motor Accident, which took place on 08.09.2018. Hari Krishan is alleged to have died on 12.11.2018 on account of injury sustained in a road-side accident. FIR dated 12.11.2018 was registered against the driver of the car bearing registration No.PB-10FT- 7105 and challan under Section 279, 304-A, 427 IPC has been presented before the trial Court. Appellant/respondent No.4 is also the son of the deceased before the Tribunal.

3. Since there is no challenge upon merits of the allegations inter se the parties as such, the facts and details are not being reproduced herein for the sake of brevity.

4. The Tribunal has determined the monthly income of and dependency of the claimants-appellants and awarded a sum of Rs.71,80,601/- to the claimants-appellants as per the following calculations:-

Sr. Heads Compensation Awarded No.

1. Monthly Income Rs.84,021/-

2. Future Prospects @ 15% Rs.84,021/-+Rs.12603/-

=

Rs.96,624/-

3. Annual Income (Rs.96,624 x 12) Rs.11,59,488/-

4. Annual Income (after deduction of Rs.10,59,488/- rounded off as Rs.1,00,000/- as income tax) Rs.10,59,490/- [11,59,490-1,00,000]

5. Deduction 1/3^rd Rs.10,59,490 - Rs. 3,53,164/- = Rs.

7,06,326/-

6. Multiplier of “11” Rs.7,06,326/- x 11 = Rs. 77,69,586/-

7. Loss of dependency Rs.77,69,586/-

8. Attendant and Transportation Charges Rs.25,000/-

9. Loss of consortium (filial of claimants Rs.44000 x 3 = Rs.132,000/-

No.1, 2 and 4)

10 Filial Consortium to claimants No.3 Rs.44,000/- 11. Loss of Estate Rs.16500/- 12. Funeral Expenses Rs.16500/-

Total Rs.80,03,586/-

Deduction on account of family Rs.8,22,985/-

pension received by the claimants Anjali Total Compensation Rs.71,80,601/-

Interest @ 6% per annum

5. Learned counsel for the claimants-appellants contends that the Tribunal has wrongly deducted the amount received by the claimant- appellant Anjali on account of family pension. Reliance has been placed upon the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in SLP No.27046 of 2004 titled “Lal Dei and ors. Vs. Himachal Road Transport Corporation and anr., dated 27.08.2007. It was also submitted that the Hon’ble Apex Court has dismissed the Special Leave Petition through Appeal No.15311 of 2020 titled “United India Insurance Ltd. Vs. Rafiqa and ors. vide order dated 14.11.2024 whereby, one of the respondents, Insurance Company has raised challenge to an order whereby such a deduction was not permitted.

6. Learned counsel for the claimants-appellants submits that keeping in view the number of the family members the deduction on account of the personal expenses of the deceased Hari Krishan should have been

1/4^th instead of 1/3^rd as considered by the Tribunal.

7. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company did not raise any contradictory plea.

8. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the paper-book.

DEDUCTION TOWARDS FAMILY PENSION:-

9. The Tribunal has considered the income of the deceased on the basis of the salary slip for the month of September, 2018 Ex. P-8. While calculating the income, the Tribunal has deducted the income tax out of the Gross Salary and considered the annual income as Rs.1,059,490/-. These