2026 Supreme(Online)(P&H) 77893

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Yashvir Singh Rathor, J
Phul Kumar – Appellant
Versus
Mahabir – Respondent
FAO-2030-2002|FAO-2099-2002|FAO-2031-2002|FAO-2156-2002

Legal representatives, including major children, are entitled to claim compensation for fatal motor accidents. Compensation must be assessed based on established pecuniary and non-pecuniary heads, including future prospects, where oral testimony regarding income is admissible in the absence of documented salary evidence.

Headnote:(A) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Section 166 - Motor accident - Death and injury - Compensation - Assessment - Income of deceased - Managerial skills - Principles of 'just compensation' - Legal representatives, including major children, are entitled to maintain claim petition - Compensation should be assessed under pecuniary and non-pecuniary heads - Future prospects must be added - (Paras 15, 23, 24, 25, 26, 39, 40, 52)

(B) Evidence - Oral testimony regarding income - Absence of documentary evidence - Sufficiency - Merely because claimants are unable to produce documentary evidence to show monthly income of deceased is not a ground to discard oral evidence - (Para 22)

(C) Compensation - Permanent disability - Loss of earning capacity - Disability certificate - Compensation to be assessed by applying suitable multiplier to percentage of diminished earning capability - (Para 39)

Facts of the case:
The appeals were filed against a tribunal's motor accident claim award relating to the death of two victims and injuries of another, alongside property damage to a vehicle. The appellants sought enhancement of compensation, challenging the tribunal's assessment of income, denial of compensation to major children, and failure to account for conventional heads of damages and future prospects, while respondents relied on the adequacy of the tribunal's original award.

Findings of Court:
The court found that the tribunal miscalculated income by ignoring managerial skills for land management and failing to apply future prospects. It further ruled that major children are entitled to compensation as legal representatives and that oral testimony regarding income, in the absence of documentary proof, should lead to an assessment based on minimum wages or reasonable estimation. Compensation was re-calculated under various heads, including loss of dependency, loss of consortium, funeral expenses, and loss of estate, applying relevant multipliers based on age and established legal precedents.

Issues: The central issues involved the assessment of compensation for death and permanent injury, the eligibility of adult legal representatives for dependency claims, the validity of oral evidence for income proof, and the calculation of loss arising from self-employment and land management skills.

Ratio Decidendi: Legal representatives, including major children, have a statutory right to compensation regardless of their dependency status. Compensation for motor accident victims must be determined by aggregating pecuniary and non-pecuniary heads, incorporating future prospects, and applying appropriate multipliers to the income, which may be established through oral testimony when formal records are unavailable.

Result: Appeals partly accepted with costs; enhanced compensation awarded along with interest.