IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO-8347-2015 (O&M)

Date of decision: 01.04.2026 Pushpa Rani ...Appellant Versus Punjab State Bus Stand Management Company Limited and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS BAHL Present: Mr. Bahadur Singh, Advocate and Ms. Rajni, Advocate for the appellant.

Mr. Sandeep Singh, AAG, Punjab.

****

VIKAS BAHL, J. (ORAL)

1. The mother of the deceased-Khushi Verma has filed the present appeal for enhancement of compensation. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, vide award dated 04.05.2015 had awarded an amount of compensation of Rs.3,75,000/- to the claimant along with interest on account of death of Khushi Verma which had occurred in a motor vehicular accident which took place on 17.07.2014. The only issue that arises for consideration before this Court is whether the appellant is entitled to additional compensation or not as other aspects are not being disputed.

2. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that in the present case, the deceased was 5 years of age at the time of accident and was a student of UKG at Jesses and Marry Convent School, Bhurewala and the Tribunal had taken her notional income to be Rs.15,000/- per annum i.e., Rs.1250/- per month. It is submitted that as per the latest judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court passed in the case of Baby Sakshi Greola Vs. Manzoor Ahmad Simon and another reported as 2025(1) RCR (Civil) 238 as well as in the case of Karuna Parmar Vs. Prakash Sinha and others and other connected matter, reported as 2025 INSC 1244, it has been held that the deceased child is not to be given notional income but the minimum salary is to be assessed by taking into consideration the minimum wages payable to a skilled worker in the concerned State as the said amount would be the minimum amount which the child would have been able to earn when the child became a major. It is submitted that in view of the abovesaid judgments, the minimum wages payable to the skilled worker w.e.f. 01.01.2014 in the State of Haryana was Rs.6159.50 and thus, monthly income of the deceased should be taken as Rs.6159.50.

3. It is further argued that in the present case, multiplier which had been applied by the Tribunal was ‘15’ which is on the lower side whereas multiplier in the present case should have been applied as ‘18’. It is submitted that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Abhimanyu Partap Singh Vs. Namita Sekhon and another, reported as 2022(3) PLR 99, had after taking into consideration the law laid down in various judgments observed that in the case of a 5½ years old child, multiplier of ‘18’ would apply. It is further submitted that no amount had been given on accounts of loss of consortium, loss of estate and funeral expenses by the Tribunal and on the said accounts, amounts of Rs.48,400/-, Rs.18,150/- and Rs.18,150/- respectively should be paid to the appellant. It is thus, submitted that the appellant be awarded an additional compensation after giving benefit of the above and the said additional compensation should be awarded to the appellant along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till its realisation.

4. Learned State Counsel, on the other hand, has submitted that the rate of interest which is sought to be claimed by the appellant i.e., 9% per annum is highly excessive and the highest rate of interest that can be awarded on the additional amount of compensation is at best 6% per annum. It is further submitted that the Tribunal had already awarded an amount of Rs.75,000/- towards non-pecuniary damages and in case the appellant wishes to claim separate amounts on accounts of loss of consortium, funeral expenses and loss of estate then the said amount of Rs.75,000/- should be deducted from the total amount.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant, in view of the objection raised on behalf of the respondents-State, has very fairly submitted the revised chart in which the amount awarded on