114 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 12.05.2026 MAMTA AND OTHERS ....Appellants Versus KHURSID AHMAD CHAK AND OTHERS ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PARMOD GOYAL Present: Mr. Sanjay Jain, Advocate for the appellants.

PARMOD GOYAL, J. (ORAL)

CM-23183-CII-2025 For the reasons stated in the application for condonation of delay of 19 days in filing the appeal, the same is allowed. Delay in filing the appeal is condoned.

Main Case The present first appeal has been filed by the appellants/claimants being aggrieved by impugned award dated 18.07.2025, passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ambala (hereinafter referred to as ‘Tribunal’) vide which an amount of Rs.17,05,250/- was awarded to the appellants/claimants on account of death of Manglesh Kumar (hereinafter referred to as ‘deceased’). Appellants/claimants have sought enhancement in compensation awarded.

2. The only issue in the present appeal which has arisen from the impugned award dated 18.07.2025 is with regards to loss on account of dependency of appellants/claimants. There is no dispute with regard to addition of future prospects, deduction on account of personal expenses and award of multiplier of 14 as per age and number of dependents of deceased. The only dispute is with regards to income of deceased as assessed by learned Tribunal. Learned Tribunal vide impugned award has taken deceased to be unskilled worker and by applying minimum wages payable to unskilled workers at the time of accident had determined monthly income of deceased to be Rs.9,500/-.

3. On the other hand, it was the case of appellants/claimants that deceased was running a saw mill and was a skilled worker earning Rs.45,000/- per month. Learned Tribunal has duly taken into consideration evidence led by appellants/claimants and had concluded that except for self- serving oral statement that deceased was running a saw mill and was a skilled worker, no cogent and reliable evidence has been placed on record to prove income and vocation of deceased.

4. Learned counsel for appellants/claimants has argued that learned Tribunal has erred in not considering marked documents which show that father of deceased was a licensee of saw mill and was running the same. Learned counsel has also made reference to cross-examination of daughter as well as wife of deceased i.e. PW3 and PW4 wherein both had stated that deceased had been running the saw mill owned by his father. However, on reconsideration of evidence of appellants/claimants, I find that none of the evidence being sought by appellants/claimants is sufficient to conclude that deceased was running a saw mill. The evidence of PW3 and PW4 at the most are self-serving oral statements wherein they are claiming that deceased was running a saw mill and earning Rs.45,000/- per month.

The document relied upon by appellants/claimants goes to show that it was not deceased who was owner of saw mill rather his father was the licensee and owner of saw mill. Moreover, there is no evidence on record to show that saw mill was ever succeeded by deceased or was being run by deceased after succeeding the same from his father. No electricity bills or license or any other material which can show existence of saw mill being run by deceased on date of his death has been placed on record. Therefore, such self-serving oral evidence has rightly been rejected by learned Tribunal in order to assess monthly income of deceased.

5. In view of the facts and circumstances of the present case, learned Tribunal has rightly taken income of deceased on the basis of minimum wages payable to unskilled worker. No fault can be found in the approach of learned Tribunal. There is no further scope for enhancement.

Present appeal is without any merit, hence is dismissed.

6. Pending application(s), if any, is/are disposed of accordingly.

(PARMOD GOYAL)

12.05.2026 JUDGE chiranjeev