IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH (i) FAO-2243-2017 (O&M) SBI General Insurance Company Ltd.

...Appellant VERSUS Seema Devi and others ...Respondents (ii) FAO-3350-2017 (O&M)

Seema Devi and others ...Appellants VERSUS Rampal Singh and others ...Respondents Date of Decision: December 01, 2025 CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ARCHANA PURI Present: Ms.Manvi Verma, Advocate for Mr.Rajneesh Malhotra, Advocate for the appellant (in FAO-2243-2017).

Mr.Ranjit Saini, Advocate for respondents No.1 to 3 (in FAO-2243-2017) and for the appellants (in FAO-3350-2017).

Mr.Ram Kumar Saini, Advocate for respondents No.4 and 5.

****

ARCHANA PURI, J.

These are two appeals filed by the rival parties to assail the Award dated 11.01.2017 passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, on account of death of Sukhwinder Singh, in a motor vehicular accident.

FAO-2243-2017 has been filed by the insurance company, thereby, seeking reduction of the compensation granted to the claimants, whereas, FAO-3350-2017 has been filed by the appellants-claimants, thereby, seeking enhancement of the compensation.

On appraisal of the evidence, learned Tribunal had concluded about the accident to have taken place on 19.06.2015, on account of rash and negligent driving of dumper bearing registration No.HR-58A-1977, driven by respondent No.1-Rampal Singh, as a result whereof, Sukhwinder Singh had sustained fatal injuries.

It is pleaded case of the claimants that Sukhwinder Singh was

34 years, at the time of accident and he was working as labourer and earning Rs.15,000/- per month. Learned Tribunal, on the basis of material brought on record, considered the deceased to be aged 34 years old, at the relevant time, but however, considering him to be working as labourer, his monthly earnings were taken as Rs.8100/- and the compensation was worked upon, which is reproduced in the tabular form:-

Earnings Rs.8100/- per month Addition of 50%, on the count of Rs.8100+Rs.4050=Rs.12,150/-

‘future prospects’

Deduction to the extent of 1/3rd Rs.12,150-4050=Rs.8100/-

Multiplier of ‘16’ Rs.8100x12x16=Rs.15,55,200/-

Loss of consortium to claimant No.1 Rs.1,00,000/-

Transportation and funeral expenses Rs.25,000/-

Loss of care and affection to Rs.1,00,000/- each claimants No.2 and 3 Total Rs.18,80,200/-

So far as, the age and number of dependents are concerned, the same, as such, is not disputed by learned counsel for the insurance company. Be it noted that the insurance company has also assailed the quantum of compensation.

Now, it is submitted by learned counsel for the insurance company that extent of earnings of the deceased, have been considered on higher side. In fact, while making reference to the minimum wages, prevalent at the relevant time, counsel submitted that the earnings were Rs.5886/- per month and therefore, in any case, the earnings ought to be taken as Rs.5900/- per month, at the maximum.

However, the aforesaid submission is not tenable. No doubt, the minimum wages have been prescribed by the State governments, from time to time, but the minimum wages, as stated in the notification of the relevant time, is not the only yardstick to be taken into consideration. In fact, it is the lowest tier of compensation to be worked upon i.e. the base amount. However, it ought to be taken into consideration that in the labour class, in the age group of 30-45 years, generally, the people, for the well being of their families, tend to do over work. Considering the same, the earnings of the deceased, as taken by learned Tribunal to be Rs.8100/- per month, calls for no further interference. But anyhow, as per the prevalent settled provisions, addition on the count of ‘future prospects’ made to the extent of 50% is on higher side and it ought to be 40% The deduction to the extent of 1/3rd has been correctly made and multiplier of ‘16’ applied by the Tribunal is also correct, as per Smt.Sarla Verma vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and anr., 2009(3) RCR (Civil) 77 However, the compensation worked