IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO-5612-2025(O&M)

Date of decision: 06.04.2026 Gurdial Singh & Others ...Appellant(s)

Vs.

Daler Singh & Others ...Respondent(s)

***

CORAM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA Present:- Mr. B.D. Sharma, Advocate for the appellants.

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

***

NIDHI GUPTA, J.

Present appeal has been filed by the claimants seeking enhancement of compensation of Rs.7,27,978/- awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Amritsar (hereinafter ‘the learned Tribunal’) vide Award dated 08.05.2025 passed in MACP/158 dated 17.11.2020 filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act (hereinafter “the Act”). The 6 claimants are the 88-year-old father, 59-year-old brother, 57-year-old brother, 48-year-old married sister, 67-year-old married sister, and 66-year- old married sister of deceased Sania @ Kuldeep Kaur, who was 56 years old at the time of accident. Present appeal has been filed by claimants No.1 to 4; and claimants No.5 and 6 are pro-forma respondents No.4 and 5 herein.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the ld. Tribunal on the basis of pleadings and oral & documentary evidence adduced by the parties, concluded that the deceased Sania @ Kuldeep Kaur had died due to the injuries suffered by her in a motor vehicular accident that took place on 30.09.2020 at about 5:05 pm due to the rash and negligent driving of Truck bearing registration No.PB-02-BJ-9752 (hereinafter “the offending vehicle”) being driven by respondent No.1, owned by respondent No.2, and insured by respondent No.3. The said compensation has been awarded along with interest @ 6% per annum. Respondents were held jointly and severally liable for payment of compensation.

3. Learned counsel for the appellants seeks enhancement of compensation by submitting that the learned Tribunal has awarded meagre amount of compensation as nothing has been awarded by way of future prospects. Deduction of 50% towards personal expenses has been wrongly made. Interest of 6% is on the lower side and should be at least 9%. Income has been taken on the lower side as only Rs.9907/- per month; whereas deceased Sania @ Kuldeep Kaur was earning Rs.25,000/- per month by running a Boutique from her house. It is submitted that even otherwise also, it is well settled that considering the value of services of the deceased being a house maker, income is to be considered equivalent to wages of skilled labourer. Thus, income of the deceased ought to have been taken as Rs.25,000/- per month. It is accordingly prayed that the present appeal be allowed and compensation be enhanced as above.

4. On the asking of the Court, Mr. Punit Jain, Advocate accepts notice on behalf of respondent No.3/insurance company. Learned counsel opposes the submissions advanced on behalf of the appellants and submits that the impugned Award suffers from no error; and the present appeal deserves to be dismissed.

5. No other argument is made on behalf of the parties. I have heard learned counsel and perused the case file in detail. I find no merit in the submissions advanced on behalf of the appellants.

6. A perusal of record of the case shows that the pleaded case of the appellants before the Tribunal as recorded in Para 2 of the Award is that:-

“2. Perusal of the claim petition reveals that Sania alias Kuldeep Kaur was aged about 56 years and she was earning Rs.25,000/- p.m. by running a boutique from her house. On 30.09.2020, at about 5:05 p.m., Kuldeep Kaur was going on her Activa bearing no. PB-02-CE-9244 towards 100 Ft. road, Amritsar and she was being followed by her brother Shamsher Singh. When she was about to take turn from 100 Ft. Chowk towards 100 Ft. road, truck bearing registration no. PB-02-BJ- 9752 driven by respondent no.1 at a very high speed came from her behind and hit her Activa. Sania fell from her Activa and was crushed under the wheels of the truck. She succumbed to the injuries on the spot. She died due to the rash and negli