IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.1983 of 2021 (O&M)

GAFOOR KHAN AND OTHERS …Appellants Vs SARAFAT AND OTHERS …Respondents

1 The date when the judgment was reserved 24.03.2026 2 The date when the judgment is pronounced 08.05.2026 3 The date when the judgment is uploaded on the website 08.05.2026

4 Whether only operative part of the judgment is Full pronounced or whether the full judgment is pronounced

5 The delay, if any, of the pronouncement of full Not applicable judgment, and reasons thereof.

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJA Present: Mr. Ashish Gupta, Advocate for the appellants.

Mr. Harsh Aggarwal, Advocate and Mr. Tarun Jindal, Advocate for respondent No.3/Insurance Company.

****

HARKESH MANUJA, J.

1. By way of present appeal, challenge has been laid to an award dated 19.02.2021 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Mewat at Nuh (for brevity, “the Tribunal”), whereby an amount of Rs.2,10,000/- was awarded as compensation to the appellants/claimants along with interest @ 8% per annum from the date of filing of claim petition till its realization on account of death of Najeer Ahmed in a motor vehicular accident, occurred on 21.07.2017.

2. As sole issue for determination in the present appeal is confined to quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, a detailed narration of facts of the case is not reproduced herein for the sake of brevity.

ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLANTS/CLAIMANTS.

3. Learned counsel for the appellants/claimants vehemently argued that the learned Tribunal erred both on facts as well as in law while assessing the compensation on the lower side. It was contended that the deceased was the sole breadwinner of the family and the learned Tribunal wrongly deducted 50% towards personal expenses despite there being five dependents, whereas deduction ought to have been restricted to 1/4th in view of the settled principles governing assessment of dependency. He further argued that the monthly income of the deceased was arbitrarily assessed at Rs.6,000/- per month despite unrebutted evidence showing that the deceased was earning about Rs.10,000/- per month as a labourer. Learned counsel further submitted that inadequate amount was awarded under the conventional heads including funeral expenses, loss of consortium, transportation charges and loss of estate. It was, thus, prayed that the impugned award be suitably modified and the compensation be enhanced along with just and reasonable interest.

ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF LEARNED COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENT No. 3/INSURANCE COMPANY.

4. Per contra, learned counsel representing the respondent No. 3/Insurance Company, neither refuted the factum of accident nor even the negligence of the offending vehicle, however submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the present case, the compensation assessed by the learned Tribunal called for no interference.

DISCUSSION AND REASONING

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the paper-book of the case. I find substance in the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellants/claimants.

QUESTION OF INCOME ASSESSED

6. A perusal of the impugned award reveals that the learned Tribunal assessed the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.6,000/- per month on mere conjectures and surmises, without there being any cogent basis for such assessment. Though the appellants claimed that the deceased was earning Rs.10,000/- per month as a labourer, no documentary evidence regarding his exact income was brought on record. However, it is well settled that in the absence of direct proof of income, the income of a deceased labourer is required to be assessed on the basis of the minimum wages prevailing at the relevant time. Reliance in this regard can be placed on “Chandra @ Chanda @ Chandraram vs. Mukesh Kumar Yadav & Ors.”, reported as (2022) 1 SCC 198, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that in absence of proof of income, the minimum wage notification can be