IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH (387)

FAO-568-2025 Date of decision:- 29.01.2026 Fulvanti and others ...Appellants Versus Anil Vij and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS BAHL Present: Mr. Abhinav Aggarwal, Advocate, for the appellants.

Mr. Punit Jain, Advocate, for respondent No.3-Insurance Company.

****

VIKAS BAHL, J. (ORAL)

1. The widow and six children of the deceased-Sher Singh have filed the present appeal for enhancement of compensation. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Narnaul, vide award dated 07.11.2024 had awarded the compensation of Rs.18,54,936/- along with interest on account of death of Sher Singh which took place in a motor vehicular accident on 29.09.2019. The only issue which arises for consideration in the present appeal is as to whether the present appellants are entitled to additional compensation or not as other aspects have not been disputed before this Court.

2. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the minimum wages which have been taken into consideration by the Tribunal are on lower side, inasmuch as, the accident had taken place on 29.09.2019 and as per the revised notification issued prior to the said date, the minimum wages were stated to be Rs.9024.24 for unskilled labour whereas the Tribunal has taken into consideration only an amount of Rs.8827.40 as minimum wages for unskilled labour. It is further submitted that in case the minimum wages of Rs.9024.24 is taken into consideration, then, on account of loss of future income, the present appellants would be entitled to Rs.15,16,032/-, whereas, the Tribunal has awarded a total amount of Rs.14,82,936/- and thus, the appellants should be entitled to an additional compensation of Rs.33,096/-. It is submitted that the said additional compensation be awarded to the present appellants along with interest @ 9% per annum. In support of his arguments, learned counsel for the appellants has relied upon the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case titled as National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and others reported as (2017) 16 SCC 680. On behalf of the appellants, a chart has been submitted which has been reproduced herein below:-

ld. MACT Hon’ble HC Monthly Income 8827 9024 Future Prospects 25% 25% Deduction 1/5th 1/5th Multiplier 14 14 Loss of future income Loss of future income

8827 x 125 x 4 x 14 x 12 = 14,82,936 9024 x 125 x 4 x 14 x 12 = 15,16,032

100 5 100 5 Loss of Consortium=48000 x 7 = 3,36,000 Loss of Consortium = 48000 x 7 = 3,36,000 Loss of Estate & Funeral = 18000 Loss of Estate & Funeral = 18k

18000 18k 36000 36k Total = 18,54,936 Total = 18,88,032 difference = 33,096 Rs.33096 + Int.

3. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.3-Insurance Company, on the other hand, has submitted that the rate of interest which is sought to be claimed by the appellants is highly excessive and at best the interest that can be awarded on the additional compensation should be 6%

per annum.

4. This Court has considered the arguments raised on behalf of both the parties and has gone through the paper-book and also the chart produced by the learned counsel for the appellants and is of the opinion that the amount claimed by the appellants on account of the loss of future income is in accordance with law

5. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Pranay Sethi’s case (Supra), has held as under:-

“59.In view of the aforesaid analysis, we proceed to record our conclusions:-

59.1 The two-Judge Bench in Santosh Devi should have been well advised to refer the matter to a larger Bench as it was taking a different view than what has been stated in Sarla Verma, a judgment by a coordinate Bench. It is because a coordinate Bench of the same strength cannot take a contrary view than what has been held by another coordinate Bench.

59.2 As Rajesh has not taken note of the decision in Reshma Kumari, which was delivered at earlier point of time, the decision in Rajesh is not a binding precedent.

59.3 While determining the inc