IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 14.10.2025 Sito and others ...Appellant(s)

Vs.

Love Kumar and others ...Respondent(s)

CORAM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA Present:- Mr. Ashwani Arora, Advocate for the appellants.

***

NIDHI GUPTA, J.

The present appeal has been filed by the claimants seeking enhancement of compensation of Rs.30,000/- awarded by the ld. Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Hoshiarpur (hereinafter “the learned Tribunal”) vide Award dated 14.05.2018 passed in MACT Case No. 7 dated 12.01.2016 filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, (hereinafter “the Act”). The Claim Petition had originally been filed by the sole claimant/mother of the deceased Surinder Kumar. However, during the pendency of the Claim Petition, the sole claimant namely Sito had expired and her 5 LRs being the married brother; married sister; unmarried brother; married sister and married brother respectively, of the deceased Surinder Kumar @ Surinder Singh @ Surinder Pal @ Shinda were incorporated by the learned Tribunal, vide order dated 10.03.2016.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the ld. Tribunal on the basis of pleadings and evidence adduced before it concluded that the deceased- Surinder Kumar had died due to the injuries suffered by him in a motor vehicular accident that took place on 21.10.2015 at about 09:00 p.m. due to the rash and negligent driving of a Canter bearing registration No. PB12L-5564 (hereinafter “the offending vehicle”) being driven by respondent No.1; owned by respondent No.2; and insured by respondent No.3. The Tribunal awarded the above said compensation along with interest @ 9% per annum. All the respondents were held liable to pay the compensation jointly and severally.

3. Learned counsel for the appellants seeks enhancement of compensation by submitting that the deceased was 25 years old at the time of accident. He was a skilled painter and was earning Rs.50,000/- p.m. However, by ignoring the above facts, learned Tribunal has awarded only Rs.30,000/- under the conventional heads. Even nothing has been awarded towards consortium. The appellants being the brothers and sisters of the deceased were entitled to compensation. It is accordingly prayed that present Appeal be allowed; and the compensation be enhanced.

4. No other argument is raised on behalf of the appellants.

5. I have heard ld. Counsel and perused the case file in detail.

6. I find no merit whatsoever in the submissions made on behalf of the appellants. Admittedly, original sole claimant/mother of the deceased had filed the present Claim Petition on dated 12.01.2016. However, she had expired on 26.01.2016. Accordingly, vide order dated 10.03.2016, present appellants being the 39-year-old married brother; 42- year-old married sister; 34-year-old unmarried brother; 33-year-old married sister; and 31-year-old married brother of the deceased Surinder Kumar were impleaded as the present 5 appellants. Accordingly, the Tribunal had awarded the compensation of Rs.30,000/- i.e. Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenses and Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate on the reasoning that at the time of filing Claim Petition, the original sole claimant Sito had taken a stand that the deceased was survived only by his mother Sito, who was totally financially dependent upon the deceased. Moreover, during the proceedings before the learned Tribunal, it has come on record that the appellants in their cross-examination have admitted that appellant No.1/Satpal Ram, married brother of the deceased has gone to Dubai for his livelihood. Appellant No.2/Kulwinder Kaur, married sister of the deceased; as also appellant No.3/Sanjiv Kumar, unmarried brother of the deceased are also residing in Dubai. Appellant No.4/Kuldeep Kaur married sister of the deceased is also living happily in her matrimonial home. Admittedly, Appellant No.5/Gurmeet Kumar married brother of the deceased is a mason and earning Rs.12,000/-p.m. Therefore, none of the appellants could pr