Sr. No.210 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO-4676-2018 (O&M)

Date of decision: 13th February 2026 JAGWANTI AND ANOTHER .....…Appellants versus SHAMSHER AND OTHERS .......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE HARPREET KAUR JEEWAN Present: Mr. R.K. Chaudhary, Advocate for Mr. Sukhdeep Parmar, Advocate for the appellants.

None for respondent No.3-Insurance Company.

HARPREET KAUR JEEWAN, J. (ORAL)

1. By way of filing the present appeal, the appellants are seeking enhancement of compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Panipat, by assailing the correctness of the Award dated

15.03.2018, regarding the death of their son-Anil Kumar.

2. Relevant facts, in brief, are that on 05.08.2016, appellant-Ajay along with his son-Anil, was going from Israna to Village Mandi by car. At about 1:15 PM, when the reached Mandi, a car make Captiva bearing Registration No.DL-9-CT-3297, which was being driven by respondent No.1 at a high speed, struck with the car of the appellants, as a result of which, their car got imbalanced and struck in the tree. Resultantly, the occupants of the car sustained injuries. Respondent No.1 fled away from the spot. FIR No.182 dated 05.08.2016, was registered under Sections 279, 337, 338 and

304-A IPC, at Police Station Israna.

3. The claimants, being parents of deceased-Anil, filed a claim petition, which was contested by the driver and owner of the vehicle as well as by the Insurance Company. The Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.7,35,000/- as compensation in respect to the death of their son-Anil Kumar, as per the following calculations:-

(cid:1)(cid:3) (cid:4)(cid:5)(cid:6)(cid:7)(cid:8)(cid:9)(cid:7)(cid:10)(cid:6)(cid:11)(cid:6)(cid:12)(cid:13)(cid:6)(cid:10) (cid:1)(cid:14)(cid:7)(cid:15)(cid:6)(cid:12)(cid:16)(cid:13)

(cid:2)(cid:3) (cid:17)(cid:18)(cid:19)(cid:10)(cid:6)(cid:20)(cid:18)(cid:7)(cid:8)(cid:9) (cid:1)(cid:21)(cid:22)(cid:2)

(cid:23)(cid:3) (cid:24)(cid:8)(cid:18)ti(cid:8)(cid:20)(cid:12)(cid:26)(cid:7)ti(cid:20)(cid:11)(cid:8)(cid:27)(cid:6) (cid:28)(cid:13)(cid:3)(cid:29)(cid:21)(cid:30)(cid:21)(cid:21)(cid:21)(cid:31) (cid:7)!(cid:6)(cid:16)(cid:7)(cid:12)(cid:20)(cid:20)(cid:19)(cid:27)

(cid:29)(cid:3) "(cid:19)(cid:26)(cid:18)ti!(cid:26)ti(cid:6)(cid:16) (cid:1)#

$(cid:3) %(cid:8)(cid:27)!(cid:6)(cid:20)(cid:13)(cid:12)(cid:18)ti(cid:8)(cid:20) (cid:28)(cid:13)(cid:3)(cid:29)(cid:21)(cid:30)(cid:21)(cid:21)(cid:21)(cid:31) (cid:7)&(cid:7)(cid:1)#(cid:7)’(cid:7)

(cid:28)(cid:13)(cid:3)((cid:30)(cid:2)(cid:21)(cid:30)(cid:21)(cid:21)(cid:21)(cid:31)

)(cid:3) *(cid:19)(cid:20)(cid:6)(cid:16)(cid:12)(cid:26)(cid:7)(cid:6)+!(cid:6)(cid:20)(cid:13)(cid:6)(cid:13) (cid:28)(cid:13)(cid:3)(cid:1)$(cid:30)(cid:21)(cid:21)(cid:21)(cid:31) ,(cid:8)(cid:18)(cid:12)(cid:26) (cid:28)(cid:13)(cid:3)((cid:30)(cid:2)(cid:21)(cid:30)(cid:21)(cid:21)(cid:21)(cid:31) (cid:7)(cid:22)(cid:7)(cid:28)(cid:13)(cid:3)(cid:1)$(cid:30)(cid:21)(cid:21)(cid:21)(cid:31) (cid:7)’(cid:7)

(cid:1)(cid:2)(cid:3)(cid:4)(cid:5)(cid:6)(cid:7)(cid:5)(cid:8)(cid:8)(cid:8)(cid:9)(cid:10)

4. Learned counsel for the appellants contends that the compensation has not been rightly awarded, as such, the same needs to be re-worked.

5. Despite notice, none appeared on behalf of respondent No.3-

Insurance Company.

6. I have heard learned counsel for the appellants and perused the paper book.

7. The Tribunal has considered the notional income of the deceased as Rs.40,000/- per annum, which is not the correct approach. In “Kajal v. Jagdish Chand and others”; (2020) 4 SCC 413, the Hon’ble Apex Court discarded the method of treating notional income of the minor victim (12 years in that case) and considered the minimum wages payable to a skilled worker and worked out the compensation. In “Baby Sakshi Greola vs. Manzoor Ahmad Simon and Another; 2025 (1) RCR (Civil) 238, the Hon’ble Apex Court held that in the case of a minor victim, taking notional income is not a correct approach. The minimum wages payable to a skilled worker has