315 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision : 29.10.2025 LAKHVIR SINGH AND ANR. .... Appellants VERSUS SHAM LAL AND ORS .... Respondents CORAM : HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE ALKA SARIN Present : Mr. S.S. Sandhu, Advocate for Mr. S.S. Swaich, Advocate for the appellants. Mr. Lalit Garg, Advocate for respondent No.3.

ALKA SARIN, J. (ORAL)

1. As per the report of the Mediator, the mediation was a non-

starter.

2. The present appeal has been preferred by the claimant-appellants aggrieved by the quantum of compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Fatehgarh Sahib (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Tribunal’)

vide award dated 08.08.2022.

3. Since the factum of the accident is not in dispute, the facts, as recorded in the impugned award passed by the Tribunal, are not being adverted to herein for the sake of brevity.

4. The Tribunal in the present case had awarded the following compensation :

5. Learned counsel for the claimant-appellants would contend that though the claimant-appellants do not challenge the deduction, the addition made towards future prospects and the multiplier as applied by the Tribunal, however the income ₹9,179 as assessed by the Tribunal is on the lower side keeping in view the fact that the deceased had passed his matriculation and had also cleared IELTS examination and secured 6 Bands. Learned counsel would further contend that the Tribunal instead of applying the wages as applicable to a skilled worker, as per the law laid down in the cases of Kajal vs. Jagdish Chand & Ors. [2020 (2) RCR (Civil) 27], Baby Sakshi Greola vs. Manzoor Ahmad Simon & Anr. [2025 (1) RCR (Civil) 238] and Karuna Parmar vs. Prakash Sinha & Ors. [2025 (1) TAC 730], had assessed the income of the deceased as per the minimum wages applicable to an unskilled worker. It is further the contention of the learned counsel that that the amounts awarded under the conventional heads i.e. funeral expenses and loss of estate and under the head loss of consortium are not in accordance with the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of 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 N. Jayasree & Ors. vs. Cholamandalam M.S General Insurance Company Ltd. [2021(4) RCR (Civil) 642].

6. Per contra, the learned counsel for respondent No.3-Insurance Company has vehemently argued that sufficient amount had already been awarded as compensation in the present case and that there is no scope of any enhancement.

7. Heard.

8. The deceased in the present case was 21 years of age and the Tribunal had assessed his income as per the minimum wages applicable to an unskilled worker. The argument of the learned counsel for the claimant- appellants that the income of the deceased ought to have been assessed as that of a skilled worker deserves to be accepted. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Baby Sakshi Greola (supra), while relying upon the case of Kajal (supra), assessed the notional income of a 7-year-old child, who had received injuries, on the basis of minimum wages payable to a skilled worker. Still further, the Hon’ble Supreme Court recently in the case of Karuna Parmar (supra), yet again relying on Baby Sakshi Greola (supra), awarded the compensation in the case of a 6-year-old child, who had died in an accident which occurred on 07.03.2014, as per the minimum wages applicable for a skilled worker in the year 2014. The minimum wages of a skilled worker at the time of the accident i.e. 26.05.2020 were ₹10,855 per month. Hence, the income of the deceased is assessed as ₹10,855 per month. Since there is no challenge to the deduction, the addition made towards future prospects and the multiplier as applied by the Tribunal, the same are upheld.

9. Further, the amounts awarded under the conventional heads and under the head loss of consortium are not in consonance with the law laid down by