223-1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 28.10.2025 Reshma Gupta and another ..Appellants Versus Balwinder Singh and others ..Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANDEEP PANNU Present: Mr.Rishav Jain, Advocate and Mr. Shivaly Singla, Advocate for the appellants Mr. Supreet Singh, Advocate for Mr. P.S.Dhaliwal, Advocate for respondent no.1 Mr. Davinder Bir Singh, Advocate for respondent No.2 Mr. Tejinder Singh, Advocate for respondent No.3- Insurance Company MANDEEP PANNU, J.

1. This is claimants’ appeal against the award dated 02.03.2002 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Patiala (hereinafter referred to as ‘Tribunal’) with a prayer to modify the amount of compensation. The Tribunal has awarded compensation of ₹

8,94,200/- on account of death of Smt. Raksha Gupta in a vehicular accident, which took place on 09.10.2000. The claim petition has been filed on behalf of her two children. There is no dispute with regard to the correctness of the findings recorded by the Tribunal regarding death of the deceased in the aforesaid vehicular accident as well as the fact that the deceased died due to rash and negligent driving by Driver of the Matador bearing registration plate no. DL-4CD-3350. Hence, the only issue is with regard to quantum of compensation.

2. Since the factum of the accident is not in dispute, therefore, for the sake of brevity, the facts, as recorded by the Tribunal, in the impugned award, are not being reproduced herein.

3. The compensation awarded by the Tribunal is tabulated as under:-

Sr. Heads Compensation No. awarded

1. Monthly Income 8500/-

2. Deduction for personal & living expenses 5700 I.e 1/3rd I.e 8500/3 = 2833.33 = 2833 [8500-2833 = 5667, which is rounded off to 5700]

3. Annual income 68,400/-

5700x12 = 68400

4. Multiplier 13 8,89,200/-

68400x13 = 8,89,200/-

5. Funeral expenses 5,000/-

Total ₹ 8,94,200/-

4. Learned counsel for the claimants-appellants submits that the Tribunal has erred in assessing income of the deceased and applying appropriate multiplier. Furthermore, it has also failed to grant future prospects and any amount under Heads ‘loss of consortium’ and ‘loss of estate’. He also submits that even the amount awarded under Head ‘funeral expenses’ is highly inadequate. He places reliance upon law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors [(2017) 16 SCC 680], Magma General Insurance Company Limited vs. Nanu Ram alias Chuhru Ram & Ors [(2018) 18 SCC 130] and Sarla Verma and others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another (2009) 6 SCC 121.

5. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.3- Insurance Company has vehemently argued that sufficient amount towards compensation has already been awarded by the Tribunal and there is no scope for enhancement.

6. This Court has considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties.

7. Now let us assess the income of the deceased. The ₹

Tribunal has assessed monthly income of the deceased as 8500/- after deducting some amount on account of income tax and other statutory deductions. As per Ex.P1, salary of the deceased, who was a ₹

Government employee was 10,665/-. Hon’ble Supreme Court in Shyamwati Sharma and others vs. Karam Singh and others 2010(12) SCC 378 has held that salary of a Govt. employee has to be assessed after deducting income tax only and any deductions shown in the salary slip towards GPF, life insurance premium, repayment of loans etc. should not be excluded from the income. By applying the ratio of this judgment, this Court assesses the monthly income of the ₹

deceased as 9500/-by only deducting amount towards income tax from the salary and also considering the tax slab prevailing at the relevant time.

8. While relying upon observations of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Pranay Sethi’s case (supra), the claimants are held entitled to future prospects at the rate of 30% considering the fact that deceased was 42 years old at the time of accident