##PAGE1##

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

****

109+211 CM-1874-CII-2026; CM-1875-CII-2026 in/and FAO-1486-2000 (O&M) Date of Decision.: 01.04.2026

Smt. Mari Devi (since deceased) thr LRs and Another …..Appellants Vs.

State of Haryana and Others .….Respondents

CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA

Present:- Mr. Anil Gahlawat, Advocate for the appellants.

Mr. Gaurav Garg, AAG, Haryana.

****

DEEPAK GUPTA, J. (ORAL)

The present appeal has been preferred by the claimants assailing the award dated 14.09.1999 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Rewari, limited to the ques)on of quantum of

compensa)on.

2. The factual matrix, as emerging from the record, is that one Jagra Ram lost his life in a motor vehicular accident dated 21.08.1995, which occurred due to rash and negligent driving of bus bearing registra)on No. HR-36-624 by respondent No.3. The deceased was unmarried and issue-less. The claim pe))on was ins)tuted by his widowed mother and unmarried sister, asser)ng dependency upon the income of

the deceased.

3. The learned Tribunal, upon apprecia)on of evidence, awarded a sum of ₹1,72,000/- as compensa)on, fastening joint and several liability

NEETIKA TUTEJA 2026.04.02 15:10 I attest to the accuracy and

integrity of this document

CM-1874-CII-2026; CM-1875-CII-2026 in/and FAO-1486-2000 (O&M)

upon the driver and owner of the offending vehicle.

4. Learned counsel for the appellants has contended that the Tribunal gravely erred in assessing the income of the deceased at ₹1,950/- per month, ignoring the claim that he was earning ₹3,000/- per month as an electrician. It is further submi9ed that no addi)on towards future prospects was made, the mul)plier applied was incorrect, and no amount was awarded under conven)onal heads. Reliance has been placed upon se9led principles laid down in Na(cid:3)onal Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi and ors., (2017) 16 SCC 680; Smt. Sarla Verma and ors. v. Delhi Transport Corpora(cid:3)on and another, (2009) 6 SCC 121 and “Magma General Insurance Company Ltd. v. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram and

others”, 2018(18) SCC 130.

5. Per contra, learned State counsel has argued that there was no cogent evidence to establish the occupa)on or income of the deceased. It is further submi9ed that even the minimum wages at the relevant )me were lower than the income assessed by the Tribunal. However, it is fairly conceded that future prospects were not added and the mul)plier applied

was not in consonance with the se9led legal posi)on.

6. Having considered the rival submissions and perused the record, this Court finds that the age of the deceased, as reflected in the post-mortem report, was 26 years. Although it was claimed that the deceased was working as an electrician earning ₹3,000/- per month, no documentary or reliable oral evidence was adduced to substan)ate the said claim. In absence of proof of skilled employment, the Tribunal rightly

assessed the income on a no)onal basis.

7. However, this Court also no)ces that even though the minimum wages prevailing in the year 1995 were lower, the income assessed by the Tribunal at ₹1,950/- per month cannot be said to be excessive or unreasonable so as to warrant reduc)on. Accordingly, the said

Page No. 2 of 4 Pages NEETIKA TUTEJA 2026.04.02 15:10

I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CM-1874-CII-2026; CM-1875-CII-2026 in/and FAO-1486-2000 (O&M)

income is maintained.

8. The annual income of the deceased thus comes to ₹23,400/-. In view of the authorita)ve pronouncement in Na(cid:3)onal Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, addi)on towards future prospects is mandatory. Considering the age of the deceased (26 years), an addi)on of 40% is warranted. The income aAer such addi)on works out to ₹32,760/- per

annum.

9. The next ques)on pertains to deduc)on towards personal expenses. Ordinarily, in the case of a bachelor, 50% deduc)on is applied as per Sarla Verma. However, the present case presents a peculiar factual situa)on. The