IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Reserved on: 12.11.2025 Pronounced on: 16.12.2025 Uploaded on: 17.12.2025 AMARJEET KAUR AND OTHERS …..Appellants Vs.

BHUPESH KUMAR GUPTA AND ANOTHER …Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJA Present: Mr. Sanjay Jain, Advocate for the appellants.

Mr. Sandeep Suri, Advocate for respondent- Insurance Company.

*****

HARKESH MANUJA, J.

1. By way of present appeal, challenge has been laid to an award dated 16.09.2023 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ambala (for brevity, “the Tribunal”), whereby an amount of Rs. 20, 68,710.40/- was awarded as compensation to the appellants/claimants along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of petition till its realization on account of death of Hukum Chand in a motor vehicular accident, occurred on 29.02.2020.

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 assailed the award by submitting that the learned Tribunal made wrong assessment of the income of the deceased despite clear and reliable evidence on record, including the deposition of PW3 establishing that the deceased was employed as an Accountant/Munim earning Rs. 22,500/- per month; duly corroborated by Ex.P2, i.e., the statement of account maintained from 16.04.2019 to 22.02.2020; yet, this material evidence was not appreciated in its proper perspective. He further argued that the compensation awarded under conventional heads is inadequate and not in accordance with settled legal principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Furthermore, it was submitted that interest awarded at the rate of 9% per annum was unreasonably low in view of prevailing judicial trends whereby interest @ 12% per annum was being awarded; thereby depriving the appellants of fair compensation, therefore, he prayed for enhancement as per latest decision on the subject.

ON BEHALF OF LEARNED COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENT No.2/INSURANCE COMPANY.

4. Per contra, learned counsel representing No.2/ Insurance Company submitted that there was no basis to assess the income of the deceased as Rs. 22,500/- per month as no documentary evidence was available before the learned Tribunal in support. He thus submitted that the learned Tribunal, therefore, rightly assessed the income of deceased. Learned counsel further submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the appellants/claimants were rightly compensated and, thus the present appeal was liable to be dismissed.

DISCUSSION

5. 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

6. In the present case, perusal of the record indicates that deceased- Hukum Chand, at the time of accident was 35 years of age. He was working as an Accountant/Munim with M/s Lal Chand Brij Mohan, Shop No. 28, Grain Market, Saraswati Nagar, Mustafabad (Yamuna Nagar) and was drawing a salary of Rs. 22,500/- per month. However, learned Tribunal assessed the income of the deceased @ Rs. 9,313/- per month; nevertheless upon perusal of ledger alongwith the statement of Manish Goel who appeared as PW-3, it was proved on record that the deceased was receiving salary and the learned Tribunal thus, erred while ignoring the same. Therefore, this Court in its humble opinion and in the facts and circumstances of the present case assesses the income of deceased as Rs. 22,500/- per month in consonance with the records available on the file.

7. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of “Smt. Sarla Verma and others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another,” reported as 2009(3) RCR (Civil) 77, was pleased to hold that in case the number of dependent