IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Reserved on : 10.11.2025 Pronounced on : 16.12.2025 Anjali and others ...Appellants Versus Surender and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE HARPREET KAUR JEEWAN Present: Mr. Narender Kaajla, Advocate for the appellants.

Mr. Punit Jain, Advocate for respondent No.3.

HARPREET KAUR JEEWAN, J.

1. The appellants are the legal heirs of Sunil Kumar, who died in a motor vehicle accident. They are seeking modification of the Award dated 24.02.2025 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Hisar (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Tribunal’), whereby an amount of Rs.20,78,400/- has been awarded as compensation to the appellants along with interest @ 7% per annum from the date of filing the claim petition, till its realization.

2. The issue involved in the present appeal primarily relates to the determination of compensation awarded by the Tribunal.

3. The facts to the relevant extent are such that on 26.03.2022, at about 11.00 p.m., Sunil, since deceased, was going on Eicher vehicle and was hit by a Truck bearing registration No.HR39-E- 8798 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘truck’), which came from the opposite side and was being driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner. Sunil died at the spot. The driver of the truck fled leaving the truck behind. An FIR bearing No.369 dated 27.03.2022 under Sections 279, 304A IPC was registered at Police Station Sadar, Hisar. The appellants filed claim petition seeking compensation from the driver, owner and insurer of the truck. The petition was contested by the driver, owner and the Insurance Company and ultimately, the Tribunal awarded compensation as under: -

Sr. No. Heads Compensation Awarded

1. Monthly income Rs.13,500/-

2. Future prospects @ 25% Rs.16,875/- (Rs.13,500/- + Rs.3,375/-)

3. Deduction 1/3^rd Rs.11,300/-

4. Annual income Rs.1,35,600/-

5. Multiplier of ‘14’ Rs.18,98,400/- 6. Loss of dependency Rs.18,98,400/-

7. Consortium Rs.1,44,000/- (Rs.48,000/- x 3)

8. Transportation and Funeral Rs.18,000/-

charges

9. Loss of estate Rs.18,000/-

Total Compensation Rs.20,78.400/-

Interest @ 7% per annum

4. Learned counsel for the appellants contends that the deceased was a driver by profession and he possessed a Heavy Driving License, which was produced during the evidence of the petitioner- appellants as Ex.P-11. Even the wife of the deceased had testified regarding the income of the deceased, however, the said evidence has been ignored by the Tribunal while assessing the monthly income of the deceased as Rs.13,500/- on the basis of minimum wages notified by the State Government. While placing reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Chandra @ Chanda @ Chandraram & Anr. Vs. Mukesh Kumar Yadav & Ors., (2022) 1 SCC 198, it is contended that income of the deceased should be determined on the basis of oral statement of wife of the deceased.

5. Per contra, learned counsel for the Insurance Company contends that the income has been rightly considered by the Tribunal as there was no documentary evidence to prove the same as Rs.25,000/- per month. Reliance has been placed on the decision by the Apex Court in Manusha Sreekumar and ors. vs The United India Insurance Co.Ltd., (2022) 17 SCC 321.

6. I have considered the aforesaid submissions and perused the paper-book.

7. The Tribunal has assessed notionally the income of the deceased as Rs.13,500/- per month on parity with minimum wages earned by a Heavy Vehicle Driver in the State of Haryana on the date of accident.

8. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Chandra @ Chanda @ Chandraram (supra) has held that in the absence of a salary certificate, the minimum wage notification can be a yardstick, but as the same time, cannot be an absolute one to fix the income of the deceased. In absence of documentary evidence on record, some amount of guess work is required to be done. But at the same time, the guess work for assessing the income of the deceased should not be totally detached from reality. The foll