##PAGE1##

FAO-439-2026 Page 1 of 4

(cid:1)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

121

FAO-439-2026(O&M)

Date of decision: 28.04.2026

Smt. Alka & Another ...Appellant(s)

Vs.

The Original Insurance Company Ltd. & Others ...Respondent(s)

CORAM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA

Present:- Mr. Saurabh Dalal, Advocate for the appellants.

***

NIDHI GUPTA, J.

CM No.1930-CII of 2026

For the reasons as are mentioned in the application, the same

is allowed. Delay of 314 days in re-filing the appeal is condoned.

Main Case

Present appeal has been filed by the claimants seeking

enhancement of compensation of Rs.25,09,960/- awarded by the Motor

Accident Claims Tribunal, Jhajjar (hereinafter ‘the learned Tribunal’) vide

Award dated 24.12.2024 passed in MACP-92 dated 16.03.2023 filed under

Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act (hereinafter “the Act”). The 2 claimants

are the 41-year-old mother and 47-year-old father of deceased Khushbu,

who was 20 years old at time of accident.

SUNENA

2026.04.30 11:27

I attest to the accuracy and

integrity of this document

(cid:1)

FAO-439-2026 Page 2 of 4

(cid:1)

2. Brief facts of the case are that the ld. Tribunal on the basis of

pleadings and oral & documentary evidence adduced by the parties,

concluded that the deceased Khushbu had died due to the injuries suffered

by her in a motor vehicular accident that took place on 12.02.2023 due to

the rash and negligent driving of Cruiser bearing registration No.HR-69-B-

9493 (hereinafter “the offending vehicle”) being driven by respondent No.2,

owned by respondent No.3 and insured by respondent No.1. The said

compensation has been awarded along with interest @ 9% per annum.

Respondents were held jointly and severally liable for payment of

compensation amount.

3. Learned counsel for the appellants seeks enhancement of

compensation by submitting that multiplier of 18 has been incorrectly

applied; whereas multiplier of 22 should have been applied. Conventional

heads have been awarded on the lower side. Even income of the deceased

has been assessed on the lower side. Deduction has been wrongly made.

Interest should be 12%. It is accordingly prayed that the present appeal be

allowed and the impugned Award be modified.

4. No other argument is made on behalf of the appellants. I have

heard learned counsel and perused the case file in detail. I find no merit in

the submissions advanced on behalf of the appellants.

5. Perusal of record of the case shows that the appellants have

failed to produce any authentic proof of income of the deceased. As such,

SUNENA

2026.04.30 11:27

I attest to the accuracy and

integrity of this document

(cid:1)

FAO-439-2026 Page 3 of 4

(cid:1)

the learned Tribunal has assessed income of the deceased as Rs.15,800/- per

month as that of a labourer. Age of the deceased was determined to be 20

years at the time of accident on the basis of her marksheet of CBSE (Ex.P13)

wherein her date of birth is mentioned as 08.12.2002. Accordingly, the

learned Tribunal had made an addition of 40% towards future prospects; and

correctly applied multiplier of 18. As deceased was a bachelor, deduction of

50% was correctly made. Under the conventional heads, the learned Tribunal

has awarded Rs.16,500/- for loss of estate; Rs.16,500/- for funeral expenses;

and Rs.44,000/- to each of the claimants towards loss of consortium; thereby

granting total compensation of Rs.25,09,960/-.

6. From the above, it is clear that in the facts and circumstances

of the case, a very just and fair compensation has been awarded to the

appellants. Nothing whatsoever has been shown to this Court that would

merit enhancement of the compensation granted to the appellants. No

doubt Chapter-12 of the Act is a beneficial legislation yet, as cautioned by

the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the same cannot be allowed to be treated as a

windfall or a source of profit. Hon’ble Supreme Court in ‘State of Haryana

& Another Vs. Jasbir Kaur & Others’ Law Finder Doc ID # 64043 and

‘Divisional Controller K.S.R.T.C. Vs. Mahadeva Shetty’, (2003) 7 SCC 197,

has held th