IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision :12.11.2025 DHARAM SINGH AND ANOTHER ... APPELLANTS VERSUS IFFCO-TOKIO GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY AND OTHERS ...RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PARMOD GOYAL Present: Mr. Aniket Singh Chauhan, Advocate for the appellants.

****

PARMOD GOYAL, J.

CM-7331-CII-2025 This is an application for condonation of delay of 385 days in filing the present appeal.

For the reasons mentioned in the application, the same is allowed and the delay of 385 days in filing the present appeal, is hereby condoned.

Main Case

1. The claimants–appellants are aggrieved by the quantum of compensation awarded by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Karnal (hereinafter referred to as “the Tribunal”) vide impugned order dated 14.12.2023.

₹

By the said order, the Tribunal awarded a total compensation of 21,81,696/- in favour of the claimants–appellants on account of the untimely death of Balvinder in a motor vehicular accident that occurred on 03.07.2020, caused due to the rash and negligent driving of car bearing registration no. HR-07K-0202 by respondent no. 1.

2. Insofar as the question of negligence is concerned, the same is not being disputed by the claimants–appellants. The present appeal has been filed only to challenge the quantum of compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal. 3. The claimants–appellants have sought a total compensation of ₹

60,00,000/- on the ground that the deceased Balvinder was 32 years of age at the ₹

time of his death was earning 20,000/- per month from his tent business, however, the learned Tribunal did not accept the oral assertions of the claimants- appellants regarding the deceased income and assessed his earnings on the basis of minimum wages payable to a tent pitcher, while determining the award of compensation.

4. Learned counsel for the appellants-claimants has challenged the findings of the Tribunal regarding the income of the deceased. However, upon careful consideration, I do not find any error in the conclusion drawn by the learned Tribunal. It is worth noting that no documentary evidence was placed on ₹

record to substantiate the claim that the deceased was earning 20,000/- per month from his tent business, except for oral assertions by the appellants-claimants. The appellants-claimants did place on record photographs of the shop, which they claimed to be run by the deceased, but no documentary evidence regarding monthly income from said shop was produced.

5. The learned Tribunal, after taking oral evidence of the claimants- appellants, rightly concluded that at the most the deceased was running a tent business and, for computation of compensation, took his income as the minimum wages payable to a tent pitcher. The argument of learned counsel for the claimants-appellants that, since the deceased was working in the unorganized sector, oral evidence and photographs should have sufficed, is not persuasive.

6. It is well-settled that oral evidence regarding the income of a deceased, especially when working in the unorganized sector, can be considered by courts to determine loss of dependency. However, mere oral assertions, without corroboration, are not sufficient to conclude the income of the deceased. Such oral evidence must be reliable and inspire confidence. In the present case, oral evidence was not supported by any documentation reflecting the deceased lifestyle, ownership of property, business records, or expenses on children’s education. Similarly, no evidence regarding ownership of the tent shop, rental details, or any professional training was produced. Even accounts showing income were not produced

7. Therefore, merely asserting that the deceased earned ₹

20,000/- per month from the tent business, without corroborative evidence, was insufficient to justify a higher award. The learned Tribunal correctly held that some prima facie evidence is necessary to ascertain the income of the deceased, which was lacking in the present case. Accordingly, ta