IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Reserved on: 29.09.2025 Pronounced on: 04.11.2025 KAMLESH AND ANOTHER ….Appellants Vs.

HARI RAM AND OTHERS ……Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJA Present: Mr. Pankaj Bali, Advocate for the appellants.

Mr. Punit Jain, Advocate for respondent No. 3-Insurance Company.

*****

HARKESH MANUJA, J.

[1]. By way of present appeal, challenge has been laid to an award dated 21.11.2016 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Karnal (for brevity, “the Tribunal”), whereby an amount of Rs. 14,37,200/- was awarded as compensation to the appellant/claimant along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of award till its realization.

FACTS [2]. A claim petition came to be filed before the Ld. Tribunal, praying for grant of compensation to the tune of Rs. 30,00,000/- (Rupees thirty lakhs only) along with interest @ 24% per annum on account of death of Parmod Kumar in a vehicular accident which took place on 25.05.2014 while alleging rash and negligent driving of respondent No.1-driver.

[3]. After going through the pleadings and evaluating the evidence led by both the parties, Learned Tribunal arrived at a conclusion that the accident occurred on account of rash and negligent driving of respondent No.1/driver; holding all the respondents jointly and severally liable, awarded compensation in the following manner:-

Further, liability was jointly and severally fastened upon the driver, the owner and the Insurance Company and the compensation amount was ordered to be disbursed in the ratio of 65:35.

[4]. Being aggrieved of the award dated 21.11.2016 passed by the Ld. Tribunal, the present appeal was preferred by the appellants/claimants for enhancement of compensation. Facts, as specified in the claim petition, about the manner of the accident and the issue regarding negligence of the driver recorded in the favour of the appellants/claimants by the Ld. Tribunal, being not assailed, are not being repeated here for the sake of brevity.

ARGUMENTS [5]. Learned counsel for the appellants assailed the award while submitting that earning of deceased, was to the tune of Rs. 15,000/- per month as he was a labourer and was also running a milk dairy. It was further submitted that the above fact was duly proved from the deposition of claimants which was not rebutted by the respondents by leading any evidence and therefore, Ld. Tribunal went wrong while having assessed monthly income @ Rs. 8,100/- per month. Furthermore, it was submitted that the amount of compensation granted under conventional heads is not in consonance with the settled law, therefore, he prayed for enhancement of compensation as per latest decisions on the subject.

[6]. Per contra, learned counsel representing respondent No. 3-Insurance Company neither refuted the factum of accident nor even the negligence of the offending vehicle, however submitted that in the facts of the present case, the compensation assessed by the Tribunal called for no interference.

DISCUSSION [7]. I have heard learned counsels for the parties and perused the paper- book of the case. I find force in the arguments advanced by learned Counsel for the appellants.

QUESTION OF INCOME ASSESSED [8]. In the present case, the appellants/claimants, submitted that the deceased was working as a labourer and also running a milk dairy thus, earning Rs. 15,000/- per month. Although, no documentary evidence to support the income of the deceased was placed before the Tribunal, thus, learned Tribunal assessed the monthly income of deceased @ Rs. 8,100/- per month considering him as a casual labourer. It is a matter of common knowledge that a person engaged in manual labour coupled with agricultural or dairy-related activities would have a reasonable a