IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Reserved on : 17.11.2025 Pronounced on: 16.12.2025 Uploaded on:17.12.2025 BANTI DEVI AND ORS. ......Appellant(s)

Vs SANDEEP AND OTHERS ....Respondent(s)

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJA Present: Mr. Chanderhas Yadav, Advocate with Mr. Amandeep Singh, Advocate for the appellants.

Ms. Rajni Godara, Advocate for Mr. P.H.S. Pannu, Advocate for respondent No.3/Insurance Company.

****

HARKESH MANUJA, J.

[1]. By way of present appeal, challenge has been laid to an award dated 08.08.2022 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jhajjar (for brevity, “the Tribunal”), whereby an amount of Rs.18,49,456/- was awarded as compensation to the appellants/claimants along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of claim petition till its realization on account of death of Sombir in a motor vehicular accident, occurred on 09.06.2019.

[2]. As sole issue for determination in the present appeal is confined to quantum of compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal, a detailed narration of the facts of the case is not reproduced and is skipped herein for the sake of brevity.

ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLANTS [3]. Learned counsel for the appellants/claimants assailed the award by submitting that the deceased was earning Rs.25,000/- per month by driving the three-wheeler. It was further submitted that the above fact was duly proved from the deposition of appellant/claimant No.1 which was not even rebutted by the respondents having led any evidence and therefore, the learned Tribunal went wrong having assessed monthly income @ Rs. 8,827/-. He further argued that the application of multiplier of 16 was incorrect and the appropriate multiplier ought to have been 17 and even the deduction towards personal expenses was also on the higher side. Furthermore, it was submitted that the amount of compensation granted under conventional heads was not in consonance with the settled law, therefore, he prayed for enhancement of compensation as per latest decision on the subject.

ON BEHALF OF LEARNED COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENT No.3/INSURANCE COMPANY [4]. 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 learned Tribunal called for no interference.

DISCUSSION [5]. I have heard learned counsels for the parties and perused the paperbook of the case. I find force in the arguments advanced by learned Counsel for the appellants.

QUESTION OF INCOME ASSESSED [6]. In the present case, in view of the statement of Banti Devi (wife of deceased) who appeared as PW-1, it was deposed that the deceased was earning Rs.25,000/- per month by driving three-wheeler. Although no documentary evidence to support the same was placed before the Tribunal in this regard and the learned Tribunal assessed the monthly income of deceased @ Rs.8,827/- per month while considering the deceased as an unskilled labour. In this situation, observations made by the Hon’ble Apex Court in “Kubra Bibi vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.”, reported as 2023 (3) Apex Court Judgments (SC) 23, to the effect that in the absence of definite proof of income, the social status of the deceased was to be kept in perspective where such persons are employed in unorganized sector need to be taken into account and the notional income is required to be taken into consideration to help the cause of the appellant. Relevant para from this judgment is reproduced hereunder:-

“7. In a matter of the present nature where the compensation is sought and even in absence of definite proof of the income, the social status of the deceased is to be kept in perspective where such persons are employed in unorganized sector and the notional income in any event is required to be taken into consideration. The fact that the deceased had three dependent