IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Decided on:13.01.2026 Geeta Naresh Chandeliya and others …Appellants Versus Sanwara Lal Gadri and others …Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AMARINDER SINGH GREWAL Present: Mr. Vinod Gupta, Advocate for the appellants.

Mr. Puneet Jain, Advocate for the respondent No.3-insurance company.

****

AMARINDER SINGH GREWAL, J. (Oral)

1. The present appeal has been filed by the appellants–claimants seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Karnal (hereinafter referred to as “the Tribunal”), vide award dated 08.05.2025, whereby a sum of ₹25,04,303/- was granted on account of the death of Naresh Karamveer Chandeliya, husband of the appellant No.1.

2. Mr. Puneet Jain, Advocate has put in appearance on behalf of respondent No.3-Insurance Company.

3 Succinctly, the facts of the case are that on 11.05.2022 at about 4:30 PM, the deceased was travelling on his motorcycle No. HR-40-G-9257 from village Acchanpur, District Karnal to Jaipur. When he reached near Ashok Leyland Workshop, Udawala, Manoharpur on NH-48 (Delhi–Jaipur Road), a tralla bearing registration No. RJ-32-GC-3177 (hereinafter referred to as the offending vehicle), driven by respondent No.1 in a rash and negligent manner, came from behind on the wrong side and struck the motorcycle. The deceased sustained multiple grievous injuries and succumbed to the same during treatment. Appellants being family members of the deceased filed a claim petition. On 08.05.2025, vide the impugned award passed by the learned Tribunal, they were held entitled to compensation of ₹25,04,303/-. Being dissatisfied with the compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal, they have preferred the present appeal.

4. Learned counsel for the appellants contends that the learned Tribunal has committed a manifest error in applying a multiplier of 15 despite the deceased being aged about 35 years and 6 months, whereas the appropriate multiplier of 16 ought to have been applied. Further, reliance is placed upon the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Shashikala and others v. Gangalakshmamma and another (2015) 9 SCC 150 to submit that where the deceased had not completed 36 years of age, multiplier of 16 is required to be applied. Furthermore, it is argued that the income of the deceased has been wrongly assessed at ₹10,243/- per month on minimum wages, ignoring the documentary material placed on record to show that the deceased was working as a plumber/safai karamchari in Mumbai and earning about ₹45,000/- per month. Additionally, the amounts awarded under the conventional heads, namely loss of estate, funeral expenses and consortium, are stated to be inadequate. Lastly, it is contended that the grant of interest @7.5% per annum is on the lower side, which ought to have granted at least @9% per annum. Therefore, on the above stated grounds enhancement of compensation has been prayed for.

5. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.3 submits that the award passed by the learned Tribunal does not suffer from any irregularity or infirmity, and that the findings recorded therein are well-reasoned on the basis of the material available before the learned Tribunal. It is accordingly contended that no ground is made out for interference in appeal.

6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and examined the record, with their able assistance.

7. It is not in dispute that the deceased was aged 35 years and 6 months at the time of the accident. The learned Tribunal has itself recorded the said fact on the basis of the driving licence (Ex. P1) and other documentary evidence. However, while computing the compensation, the learned Tribunal applied a multiplier of 15. As noticed from the judgment relied upon by the appellants in the case of Shashikala and others (supra) where the deceased had not completed the age of 36 years, the appropriate multiplier required to be applied is 16. The application of multiplier of 1