SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(P&H) 81786

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
HARJIT KAUR ETC. – Appellant
Versus
VISHAL SINGH ETC. – Respondent
FAO_4258_2002



##PAGE1##

(cid:1)(cid:2)(cid:3)(cid:4)(cid:5)(cid:6)(cid:7)(cid:8)(cid:4)(cid:6)(cid:9)(cid:9)(cid:6)(cid:10)(cid:3)(cid:11)(cid:12)(cid:13)(cid:14)(cid:14)(cid:14)(cid:14)(cid:14)(cid:14)(cid:14)(cid:14)(cid:14)(cid:14)(cid:14)(cid:14)(cid:14)(cid:14)(cid:14)(cid:14)(cid:14)(cid:14)(cid:14)(cid:14)(cid:14)(cid:14)(cid:14)(cid:14)(cid:14)(cid:14)(cid:14)(cid:14)(cid:14)(cid:14)(cid:14)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH

209 FAO-4258-2002(O&M)

Date of Decision: 24.04.2026

(cid:1)

(cid:2)(cid:3)(cid:4)(cid:5)(cid:6)(cid:7)(cid:1)(cid:8)(cid:3)(cid:9)(cid:4)(cid:1)(cid:3)(cid:10)(cid:11)(cid:1)(cid:18)(cid:4)(cid:13)(cid:19)(cid:1) ...Appellants

Versus

(cid:12)(cid:6)(cid:13)(cid:14)(cid:3)(cid:15)(cid:1)(cid:16)(cid:6)(cid:10)(cid:17)(cid:14)(cid:1)and Another ... Respondents

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMARINDER SINGH GREWAL

Present: Mr. Vikas Mohan Gupta, Advocate, and

Mr. Vineet Jain, Advocate, and

Ms. Tanvi Aggarwal, Advocate,

for the appellants.

Mr. A.S. Sidhu, Advocate

for respondent No.2-Insurance Company. (through VC)

(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:20)(cid:20)(cid:20)

AMARINDER SINGH GREWAL, J. (ORAL)

1. The present appeal has been filed by the claimants-appellants

seeking enhancement of compensation awarded by the learned Motor

Accident Claims Tribunal, Mansa (hereinafter referred to as ‘the learned

Tribunal’), vide award dated 02.05.2002. The learned Tribunal awarded a

sum of ₹2,03,600/- with 9 % interst p.a., on account of the death of Gurmeet

Singh in a motor vehicular accident involving Jeep No. RJV-5267, which

occurred on the night of 28.06.2000 due to rash and negligent driving of

respondent No.1.

2. Learned counsel for the appellants–claimants submits that the

impugned award is wholly inadequate and calls for enhancement. It is

contended that the learned Tribunal has erred in assessing the monthly

income of the deceased, Gurmeet Singh, at a meagre sum of ₹2,100/-,

treating him as a mere skilled labourer, despite cogent evidence on record

indicating that the deceased was earning ₹3,500/- per month. It is further

SHUBHAM -1-

2026.05.01 16:23

I am the author of this

document

##PAGE2##

(cid:1)(cid:2)(cid:3)(cid:4)(cid:5)(cid:6)(cid:7)(cid:8)(cid:4)(cid:6)(cid:9)(cid:9)(cid:6)(cid:10)(cid:3)(cid:11)(cid:12)(cid:13)(cid:14)(cid:14)(cid:14)(cid:14)(cid:14)(cid:14)(cid:14)(cid:14)(cid:14)(cid:14)(cid:14)(cid:14)(cid:14)(cid:14)(cid:14)(cid:14)(cid:14)(cid:14)(cid:14)(cid:14)(cid:14)(cid:14)(cid:14)(cid:14)(cid:14)(cid:14)(cid:14)(cid:14)(cid:14)(cid:14)(cid:14)

urged that the learned Tribunal has incorrectly applied the multiplier of 12,

whereas, considering that the deceased was 38 years of age at the time of the

accident, the appropriate multiplier ought to have been higher. Additionally,

it is submitted that no addition towards future prospects has been made, nor

has just and reasonable compensation been awarded under the conventional

heads, future income and loss of life. On the aforesaid premises, it is prayed

that the compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal be suitably enhanced

in accordance with law.

3. Per contra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent

No.2–insurance company contends that the award passed by the learned

Tribunal is just and reasonable and calls for no interference. It is submitted

that the income has been rightly assessed in the absence of cogent evidence,

the multiplier applied is appropriate, and the compensation awarded under

the conventional heads is in accordance with law. It is, thus, prayed that the

present appeal be dismissed.

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

record with their able assistance. Upon a perusal of the record, this Court

finds that the compensation awarded is not 'just' and suffers from manifest

legal errors.

5. The primary issue that arises for considerati

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top