##PAGE1##

FAO-1937-2023 (O&M) -1-

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH

FAO-1937-2023 (O&M)

NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.

......Appellant

vs.

RADHA AND ORS.

......Respondents

Reserved on:- 15.05.2026

Pronounced on:- 18.05.2026

Uploaded on:- 20.05.2026

Whether only the operative part of the judgment is pronounced? NO

Whether full judgment is pronounced? YES

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA

Present: Mr. Gopal Mittal, Advocate

for the appellant-Insurance Company.

Mr. Saurabh Chawla, Advocate

Mr. Vishal Chechi, Advocate

for respondents No.1 to 4.

Mr. Ravi Malik, Advocate

Mr. Anil Chahal, Advocate

for respondent No.5.

****

SUDEEPTI SHARMA J.

1. The present appeal has been preferred against the award dated

22.12.2022 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Palwal

(for short, 'the Tribunal’) in the claim petition filed under Section 166 of the

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, wherein the appellant-Insurance company was

fastened with the liability to pay the compensation of Rs.34,49,000/- to the

MOHD AYUB

2026.05.20 14:54

I attest to the accuracy and

authenticity of this order/judgment.

FAO-1937-2023 (O&M) -2-

claimants/respondents No.1 to 4 along with interest @ 9% per annum on the

ground of quantum of compensation to be on higher side.

2. As sole issue for determination in the present appeal is confined

to quantum of compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal, a detailed

narration of the facts of the case is not required to be reproduced here for the

sake of brevity.

SUBMISSIONS OF LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES

3. Learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company contends

as under:-

i. That income of Rs.15,000/- assessed by the learned Tribunal is

wholly without any basis as no account statement was produced

on record to prove the income as assessed by learned Tribunal.

ii. That learned Tribunal has erred in granting future prospects of

50% instead of 40% as per the settled law on compensation.

Therefore, he prays that the present appeal be allowed.

4. Per contra, learned counsel for claimants/respondents No.1 to 4

contends that compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal is on the lower

side and claimants respondent Nos.1 to 3 have filed separate appeal bearing

No.FAO-2751,-2023 titled as “Radha and others Vs. Ved Parkash and

another” seeking enhancement of compensation. He therefore, prays that the

present appeal be dismissed.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the

whole record of this case with their able assistance.

6. A perusal of the award reveals that the age of the deceased was

rightly assessed as 34 years at the time of accident. Consequently, the learned

MOHD AYUB

2026.05.20 14:54

I attest to the accuracy and

authenticity of this order/judgment.

FAO-1937-2023 (O&M) -3-

Tribunal has rightly applied multiplier of 16. So far as the contention raised

by the appellant-Insurance Company with regard to the reliability of salary

certificate Ex.PW2/A is concerned, the same has been rightly dealt with by

the learned Tribunal. PW2, the Manager of the employer firm, specifically

proved that the deceased was working as a Medical Representative and was

drawing salary of Rs.15,000/- per month. His testimony stood duly

corroborated by PW1, widow of the deceased. Mere cutting or overwriting in

the date of issuance of the certificate, in absence of any evidence to establish

fabrication or forgery, could not be a ground to discard the document. The

appellant-Insurance Company has failed to lead any rebuttal evidence, either

oral or documentary, to discredit the said evidence. Thus, the learned Tribunal

rightly assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.15,000/- per month and the

said finding warrants no interference by this Court.

7. Further Hon’ble the Supreme Court in New India Assurance Co.

Ltd vs. Ashish Ravinder Kulkarni and others, 2023 ACJ 1997, has held that in

case of a person who is in regular service, a percentage higher than the one

stated in National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors. [(2017)

16 SCC 680], can also b