IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision :10.02.2026 KRISHNA AND OTHERS ... APPELLANTS VERSUS RAJESH AND ORS. ...RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PARMOD GOYAL Present: Mr. U.K. Agnihotri, Advocate with Mr. Anuj Y. Attri, Advocate for the appellants.

Mr. Shailender Singh, Advocate for respondent No. 1.

Mr. Aseem Aggarwal, Advocate (through V.C.)

for respondent No. 3.

****

PARMOD GOYAL, J. (ORAL)

1. Present appeal has been preferred by the wife, children and parents of the deceased, Sombir (hereinafter referred to as the “Deceased”), who died in motor vehicular accident which took place on 22.08.2000, on account of rash and negligent driving by Respondent No. 2 while driving dumper bearing registration No. HR-38- B/6517.

2. Being aggrieved by the impugned award dated 03.12.2002 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Gurgaon (hereinafter referred to as “Tribunal”), vide which the appellants-claimants were found entitled to total compensation of Rs.6,27,000/-, the appellants-claimants are seeking enhancement of compensation awarded by the Tribunal as the same is not according to their entitlement.

3. Since in present appeal the only issue raised by appellants- claimants is as regards to quantum of compensation and there is no appeal or cross-objection preferred by respondents to challenge manner of accident, the detailed facts as regards to manner of accident are not being noticed for the sake of brevity.

4. Learned Tribunal had awarded the following compensation:

Income Rs.5,072/- (after deduction of pension)

Deduction 1/3^rd Multiplier 15 Total loss of dependency Rs.6,12,000/-

(Rs.3,400x12x15)

Loss of consortium Rs.10,000/-

Transportation expenses Rs.5,000/-

Total compensation awarded Rs.6,27,000/-

5. Ld. Counsel for appellants-claimants has sought enhancement of compensation on following grounds that :

• That the income of the deceased was not correctly taken by the learned Tribunal. It is asserted that the deceased was working as a constable in Haryana Police and fetching a salary of Rs.7,272/- per month. That the learned Tribunal has erred in deducting pension component from the salary of the deceased and has wrongly assessed the income to be Rs.5,072/- per month. The income of deceased ought to have been taken as Rs.7,272/- per month as proved vide salary certificate Ex. P4.

• Future prospects were not added while determining loss of dependency. Future prospects to the extent 50% of monthly income needs to be added as the deceased was 35 years of age at the time of accident and was in permanent job.

• Multiplier applied by learned Tribunal is ‘15’ whereas, keeping in view the age of deceased the multiplier of ‘16’ ought to have been granted.

• Deduction towards personal expenses of deceased was taken as 1/3^rd while determining dependency, whereas keeping in view the number of dependents of deceased i.e. 5, his wife, two children and parents, it ought to be 1/4^th • Appropriate compensation amount needs to be granted under the head loss of consortium, funeral expenses and loss of estate in accordance with law laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court.

6. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.3 has argued that sufficient amount has already been awarded as compensation in the present case and there is no scope of any enhancement.

7. The learned Tribunal assessed the income of the deceased at ₹ ₹

5,072/- per month after deducting an amount of 2,200/- which the claimants were entitled to receive as pension. So far as the income and vocation of the deceased are concerned, there is no dispute.

8. Admittedly, the deceased was a Constable in the Haryana Police ₹

and was drawing a salary of 7,272/- per month. Even the Tribunal accepted the pleaded income and vocation of the deceased and took his monthly income as ₹ ₹

7,272/-. However, the learned Tribunal had deducted 2,200/- being paid to the claimants as pension from the said salary and concluded that, for the purposes of determining loss of dependency, the income o