IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO-5321-2002 (O&M) Reserved on: 05.05.2026 Pronounced on: 19.05.2026 Uploaded on: 19.05.2026 Surjit Kaur and others ……Appellants Versus Mastan Singh and others ……Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AMARINDER SINGH GREWAL Present: Mr. Amandeep Saini, Advocate, for the appellant Nos. 2 to 4.

Mr. Neeraj Khanna, Advocate for Mr. Ravinder Arora, Advocate for the respondent No.3 (Insurance Company)

****

Amarinder Singh Grewal, J.

1. The present appeal has been filed by the appellants–claimants seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Rupnagar (hereinafter “the Tribunal”), vide award ₹

dated 03.09.2002, whereby a sum of 2,75,000/- was granted on account of the death of Amarjeet Singh, husband of the appellant No.1, in the motor vehicular accident dated 18.06.2000, due to rash and negligent driving of respondent No.2.

2. Learned counsel for the appellants contended that the Award dated 03.09.2002 passed by the learned Tribunal is contrary to law, facts and evidence available on record and, therefore, deserves modification by way of enhancement of compensation. It was submitted that the learned Tribunal failed to properly appreciate the unrebutted oral as well as documentary evidence led by the appellants and awarded a meagre amount despite the death of the sole breadwinner, thereby depriving the dependents of just compensation. Further, the learned Tribunal committed a grave error while assessing the age of the deceased to be between 40 to 45 years and yet applying a multiplier of only 12, despite documentary evidence, particularly Ex.P-3, supporting the said age bracket and warranting application of a higher multiplier. Furthermore, the ₹

findings of the learned Tribunal in awarding only 2,75,000/- have been assailed on the ground that irrelevant considerations, namely compassionate appointment granted to one of the sons of the deceased and alleged financial assistance received by the widow from the Police Department, were taken into account without any supporting evidence on record. Additionally, it has been contended that the Tribunal wrongly assessed the income of the deceased and made unwarranted deductions on the basis of presumptions and assumptions, thereby drastically reducing the compensation amount. Lastly, learned counsel submitted that no amount was awarded towards pain and suffering, transportation expenses and funeral expenses, though the appellants were legally entitled to the same.

3. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.3-Insurance Company submitted that the award passed by the learned Tribunal does not suffer from any irregularity or infirmity, and that the findings recorded therein are well-reasoned on the basis of the material available before the learned Tribunal. It was accordingly contended that no ground is made out for interference in the appeal.

4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and examined the record, with their able assistance.

5. A perusal of the award reveals that the learned Tribunal has made deduction from the compensation on the account of grant of employment to the son of deceased and family pension benefit. Whereas, it is clearly observed by Hon’ble Supreme Cout in the Sebastian Lakra v. National Insurance Company Limited, (2019) 17 SCC 465, that deduction cannot be allowed from the amount of compensation either on account of pensionary benefits or grant of employment to kin of deceased while granting the compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. A similar view was also laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Pramod Kumar Tiwari v. Premlal Gautam, 2025(2) TAC 384.

6. The relevant extract of Sebastian Lakra's case (supra), is reproduced as under:-

"12. The law is well settled that deductions cannot be allowed from the amount of compensation either on account of insurance, or on account of pensionary benefits or gratuity or grant of employment to a kin of the deceased. Th