315-1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision : 29.10.2025 MANJIT SINGH AND ORS .... Appellants VERSUS SHAM LAL AND OTHERS .... 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 deceased in the present case was 20 years of age at the time of accident i.e. 26.05.2020. The claim petition was preferred by his parents and sister. It has been averred in the claim petition that the deceased was a student of B.Com 2^nd year at the time of the accident and was also doing part time job as Clerk-cum-Accountant in M/s Dindsa Traders Commission Agents, Sirhind Mandi and was earning ₹15,000 per month. Though it was averred that the deceased was earning ₹15,000 per month, however, Mehar Singh – Proprietor of the firm where the deceased was stated to have been working – had stepped into the witness box as CW2 and disclosed that the deceased was earning ₹10,000 per month. Initially the Tribunal in the present case had made a deduction of 1/3^rd vide the impugned award; however, the deduction was modified vide order dated 26.08.2022 to 1/2. Thereafter, the Tribunal awarded the following compensation :

5. Learned counsel for the claimant-appellants would contend that the deceased in the present case was a B.Com 2^nd year student and was also working part time and that his employer had stepped into the witness box as CW2. It is further the contention of the learned counsel that the income of the deceased ought to have been assessed notionally keeping in view the fact that he was a B.Com 2^nd year student. In support of his argument, learned counsel has relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of S. Vasanthi and Anr. V/s M/s Adhiparasakthi Engg. College & Anr. [2022 (4) RCR (Civil) 837]. Learned counsel would still further 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 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 has already been awarded as compensation in the present case and that there is no scope of any enhancement. Learned counsel would further contend that 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], the income of the deceased ought to have assessed as that of a skilled worker which was ₹10,855 at the relevant time. It is still further the contention of the learned counsel that even if the averments of the parents and the sister of the deceased are to be believed, the deceased was earning ₹10,000 per month only.

7. Heard.

8. In the present case learned counsel for the claimant-app