IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Reserved on:- 14.11.2025 Pronounced on:- 18.12.2025 Date of Uploading:-19.12.2025 NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD ......Appellant vs.

VIMAL KAUR AND ORS ......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA Present: Mr. Vishavjeet Bedi, Advocate for the appellant Mr. Harinder Singh Sandhu, Advocate for respondent Nos. 1 to 4.

****

SUDEEPTI SHARMA J .

1. The present appeal has been preferred against the award dated 10.07.2017 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kurukshetra (for short, 'the Tribunal’) in the claim petition filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, wherein, the appellant insurance company was held liable to pay the compensation to the claimants/respondents to the tune of Rs.19,60,000/- along with interest @ 7.5% per annum, on the ground of quantum of compensation to be on higher side.

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 required to be reproduced here for the sake of brevity.

SUBMISSIONS OF LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES

3. Learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company vehemently argues that the compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal is on the higher side. He further submits that the Tribunal has erred in assessing ₹

the monthly income of the deceased at 15,680/- by placing reliance upon the wage notification issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Kurukshetra, applicable to skilled labour/heavy vehicle drivers, instead of adopting the minimum wages for skilled labour in the State of Haryana. Accordingly, he prays that the present appeal be allowed and amount of compensation be reduced as per latest law.

4. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 1 to 4/claimants contends that the amount of compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal is on the lower side and they have preferred separate appeal bearing FAO No. 8217-2017 titled as Vimal Kaur and others vs. Kashmiri Lal and others seeking enhancement of the amount of compensation. Therefore, he prays that the present appeal be dismissed.

5. I have heard learned counsels for the parties and perused the whole record of this case with their able assistance.

6. At the outset, it is apposite to reiterate the well-settled principle governing appellate jurisdiction. It is trite law that a Court sitting in appeal does not substitute its own view for that of the Court below merely because an alternative view is possible. Interference is warranted only where the impugned findings are vitiated by perversity, illegality, or material irregularity, or suffer from such infirmities as render them unsustainable in law. In the absence of such vitiating factors, interference in appellate jurisdiction is wholly unwarranted.

7. In the present case, a perusal of the record shows that the driving licence of the deceased was produced and exhibited as Ex. R-6. The said licence clearly reflects that the deceased was authorised to drive heavy and medium goods vehicles. Thus, the deceased was duly qualified to be treated as a skilled worker in the category of heavy vehicle driver.

8. There is nothing on record to demonstrate that the wage rates notified by the Deputy Commissioner, Kurukshetra, were not applicable to the deceased. In the absence of any cogent evidence to the contrary, the learned Tribunal was justified in relying upon the said notification while determining the income of the deceased. The approach adopted by the Tribunal cannot be said to be arbitrary or erroneous.

9. The aforesaid view also finds support from the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Saroj & Ors. v. IFFCO-Tokio General Insurance Co. & Ors., 2024 INSC 816. The relevant extract of the same is reproduced as under:-

“5. On appeal to the High Court, vide judgment and order dated 9th March, 2023 passed in FAO Nos.8504 of 2017 (O&M) and 6836 of 2017 (O&M) the amount awarded by the