IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 09.03.2026 OM DEVI AND ANOTHER ...APPELLANTS VERSUS AJMER SINGH AND OTHERS .....RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE VIRINDER AGGARWAL Present: Mr. B.B,Sharma, Advocate for appellants.

Mr. Suvir Deewan, Advocate for respondent No.3.

*****

VIRINDER AGGARWAL, J. (ORAL)

1. This appeal has been filed by the claimants seeking enhancement of compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Karnal, vide award dated 19.03.2005 passed under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 on account of the death of Priyanka in a motor accident.

BACKGROUND FACTS

2. On 23.11.2003 at about 11:00 a.m., Priyanka, aged about 8 years, was going to the shop of her father carrying a lunch box for him. When she reached in front of the shop and had just crossed the road, a tanker bearing registration No. HR-05-A-9295 came from the side of Karnal and struck her, as a result of which she fell down, sustained multiple injuries and died on the spot. The said tanker was being driven by respondent No.1 Ajmer Singh. Consequent upon his death, the claimants filed the present claim petition under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, seeking compensation on account of his untimely demise.

3. Upon consideration of the pleadings and appreciation of the oral as well as documentary evidence, the learned Tribunal returned a clear finding that the accident dated 23.11.2003 occurred due to the use of tanker bearing registration No. HR-05-A-9295 driven by respondent No.1. The learned Tribunal placed reliance upon the testimony of Om Parkash (PW-1), father of the deceased, who deposed regarding the manner in which the accident occurred when the minor Priyanka was crossing the road in front of his shop. The said testimony stood corroborated by the statement of Suresh (PW-2), Additional Ahlmad, who produced the criminal record including the report (Ex.P1) under Section 173 Cr.P.C. and the site plan (Ex.P2) prepared during investigation. In the absence of any rebuttal evidence led by the respondents, the learned Tribunal held that it stood duly established that Priyanka died as a result of injuries sustained in the motor vehicular accident involving the said tanker. While determining the quantum of compensation, the learned Tribunal took into consideration that the deceased was about 8 years of age and was a student with no independent income. Accordingly, applying the Second Schedule appended to the Motor Vehicles Act, the notional income of the deceased was taken at ₹15,000 per annum. After deducting ₹5,000 towards personal expenses of the deceased, the annual dependency was assessed at ₹10,000. By applying the multiplier of 15, the loss of dependency was computed at ₹1,50,000. In addition thereto, a sum of ₹2,000 was awarded towards funeral expenses. On this basis, the total compensation was quantified at ₹1,52,000, payable to the claimants along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till realization.

CONTENTION S

4. Learned counsel for the appellants contends that the compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal is wholly inadequate and contrary to the settled principles governing assessment of compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act. It is submitted that the learned Tribunal failed to properly consider the loss suffered by the claimants on account of the untimely death of their minor daughter and also did not award reasonable compensation under the conventional heads such as loss of love and affection, loss of estate and funeral expenses. It is further argued that the amount awarded is extremely meagre and the rate of interest granted by the learned Tribunal is also on the lower side. On these grounds, it is prayed that the impugned award be modified and the compensation be suitably enhanced.

5. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.3 has supported the findings and conclusions recorded by the learned Tribunal. It is submitted that