IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision :06.11.2025 NATHU RAM AND OTHERS ... APPELLANTS VERSUS SOMBIR AND OTHERS ...RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PARMOD GOYAL Present: Mr. V.P. Sangwan, Advocate for the appellants.

Mr. R.C. Gupta, Advocate for the respondent-Insurance Company.

****

PARMOD GOYAL, J. (ORAL)

1. The present appeal has been preferred by the claimants–appellants, ₹

who are aggrieved by the award of compensation of 19,67,000/-, granted vide the impugned award dated 15.05.2023 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bhiwani (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Tribunal’).

2. Learned counsel for the appellants-claimants has challenged the quantification of the compensation amount on the ground that the learned Tribunal has erred in taking the age of the deceased as 41 years on the basis of the death certificate marked as R-4. It is contended that as per the post-mortem report, Exhibit P-3, the age of the deceased was mentioned as 35 years. Therefore, learned Tribunal erred in relying upon the age recorded in the death certificate and ought to have considered the age of the deceased as 35 years, as reflected in the post-

mortem report.

3. On consideration, I do not find any merit in the contention raised by the claimants–appellants. It was the duty of the appellants–claimants to prove the exact age of the deceased. The best evidence regarding the age of the deceased would have been documents such as the date of birth certificate, Aadhaar Card, Voter Identity Card, Ration Card, Educational Certificates, or School Leaving Certificate, etc. It was for the claimants-appellants to produce such documents to establish the exact date of birth and consequently, the precise age of the deceased. Both the post-mortem report and the death certificate merely mention the age of the deceased on the basis of hearsay statements or assumptions. The death certificate was not prepared by the respondents; rather, it was a document procured on the basis of information supplied by someone from the claimants’ side. Therefore, in a claim petition where the Tribunal is required to conduct an inquiry, in the absence of any authentic document proving the correct age of the deceased, the learned Tribunal cannot be said to have erred in taking the age of the deceased to be 41 years. Strict principles of Evidence Act are not applicable, 4. Similarly, I do not find any error in the approach of the learned ₹

Tribunal in assessing the monthly income of the deceased as 12,000/-. The contention of the learned counsel for appellants-claimants that the income from dairy farming has not been considered is devoid of merit, as there is no material on record to establish that the deceased was engaged in dairy farming, except for the oral assertions made by the appellants-claimants.

5. The learned Tribunal has rightly held the deceased to be self- employed and accordingly granted an addition of 25% towards future prospects, ₹

assessing the loss of dependency before deduction to be 15,000/-. However, I find merit in the contention raised on behalf of the learned counsel for the claimants–appellants that the learned Tribunal has erred in applying a deduction of 1/4^th towards personal expenses. The deduction ought to have been 1/5^th, as six claimants have sought compensation.

6. In view of the mandate laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Smt. Sarla Verma & Ors. vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr., (2009) 6 SCC 121, the appropriate deduction towards personal expenses in the present case should be 1/5^th. Accordingly, after deducting 1/5^th towards personal expenses from ₹

the monthly income of 15,000/- and keeping in view the age of deceased as per the death certificate of the deceased multiplier of 14, appellants–claimants shall be entitled to a sum of (Rs. 15,000-3,000 (1/3^rd) = Rs.12,000 x 12 x 14)

₹

20,16,000/- towards total loss of dependency.

7. I find no error in the approach of the learned Tribunal in awarding ₹ ₹

15,000/- towa