##PAGE1##

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

****

128 CM-24170-CII-2025 in/and FAO-6793-2025 (O&M)

Date of Decision.: 07.04.2026

Smt. Tara Devi and Another …..Appellants Vs.

Aniket and Others .….Respondents

CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA

Present:- Ms. Neeru Thakur, Advocate for Mr. Parveen Kumar, Advocate for the appellants.

****

DEEPAK GUPTA, J. (ORAL)

The present appeal has been preferred by the claimants seeking enhancement of compensa"on awarded by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Karnal, vide award dated 21.10.2024, on account of the death of Saurabh Kumar, an unmarried boy aged about 18 years,

who lost his life in a motor vehicular accident dated 23.11.2022.

2. The learned Tribunal, upon apprecia"on of the evidence on record, assessed the total compensa"on at ₹16,03,000/-, payable jointly and severally by the owner, driver and insurer of the offending vehicle,

along with interest.

3. The appeal is accompanied by an applica"on bearing No. CM- 24170-CII-2025 under Sec"on 5 of the Limita"on Act seeking condona"on of delay of 306 days in filing the appeal. The explana"on furnished is that the appellants, being poor and unacquainted with legal remedies, could not approach this Court within "me and filed the appeal only upon gaining

knowledge of their right to seek enhancement.

4. Having heard learned counsel and perused the record, this Court finds no sufficient cause to condone the delay. The appellants were duly represented by counsel before the Tribunal. In such circumstances, a bald plea of ignorance of legal remedy cannot be accepted, par"cularly when no material has been placed on record to substan"ate either their

NEETIKA TUTEJA

2026.04.08 16:59 -1-

I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CM-24170-CII-2025 in/and FAO-6793-2025 (O&M)

alleged financial incapacity or any circumstance which prevented them from availing the remedy within limita"on. The law is well se9led that “sufficient cause” must be shown with cogent and convincing explana"on covering the en"re period of delay. The explana"on offered in the present

case is vague and does not inspire confidence.

5. Accordingly, the applica"on for condona"on of delay is dismissed. Consequently, the appeal is liable to be dismissed as barred by

limita"on.

6. Even otherwise, this Court has examined the ma9er on merits and finds no ground warran"ng interference.

7. The deceased was admi9edly 18 years of age and stated to be a student of 11th standard. Though it was pleaded that he was earning ₹25,000/- per month by giving tui"on, no reliable or cogent evidence was produced to substan"ate such claim. In the absence of proof of income, the learned Tribunal has rightly assessed the income on no"onal basis at ₹10,000/- per month, which cannot be said to be either arbitrary or on the

lower side considering the age and educa"onal status of the deceased.

8. The learned Tribunal has further added 40% towards future prospects, which is in consonance with the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Na(cid:3)onal Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi and others, (2017) 16 SCC 680, even in cases where income is assessed on

no"onal basis, par"cularly for a young deceased.

9. Since the deceased was unmarried, deduc"on of 50% towards personal and living expenses has rightly been made in terms of the principle laid down in Sarla Verma and others v. Delhi Transport Corpora(cid:3)on and another, (2009) 6 SCC 121. The mul"plier of ‘18’ applied by the Tribunal is also strictly in accordance with the age of the deceased as

per the se9led law.

10. The compensa"on under conven"onal heads, including loss of estate, funeral expenses and filial consor"um, has been awarded in terms of the principles laid down in Magma General Insurance Company Ltd. v. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram and others, (2018) 18 SCC 130, and Pranay

NEETIKA TUTEJA

2026.04.08 16:59 Page No. 2 of 3 Pages I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CM-24170-CII-2025 in/and FAO