IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision-22.04.2026 MAMTA DEVI AND ANOTHER … APPELLANTS VERSUS JASMAIL AND OTHERS … RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE VIRINDER AGGARWAL Present: Mr. Jagdeep S. Virk, Advocate for appellants Mr. Lalit Garg, Advocate, Mr. Geetika Rani, Advocate for respondent No.3/Insurance company *****

VIRINDER AGGARWAL, J. (ORAL)

1. The present appeal has been preferred by the claimants seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded vide award dated 06.09.2002 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kurukshetra, on account of the death of Johny in a motor vehicular accident.

BACKGROUND FACTS

2. The brief facts of the case are that on 08.04.2001 at about 10:30 a.m., Som Prakash, father of the deceased, along with Balbir Singh and the deceased Johny, was proceeding from their colony towards Pipli. In the meantime, a truck bearing registration No. HYX-8185, being driven by respondent No.1 in a rash and negligent manner, without blowing horn and while coming on the wrong side of the road in violation of traffic rules, approached from the Ladwa side and struck Johny from behind. As a result of the said accident, Johny sustained fatal injuries and died on the spot. Thereafter, the legal representatives of the deceased filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 seeking compensation on account of his death. Upon appreciation of the evidence brought on record, the learned Tribunal awarded a lump sum ₹

compensation of 80,000/- along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till its realization, holding the driver, owner and insurer of the offending truck jointly and severally liable.

CONTENTIONS

3. Learned counsel for the appellants contended that the compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal is wholly inadequate and not in consonance with the settled principles governing the determination of just compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act. It was submitted that the learned Tribunal erred in granting a lump sum compensation without adopting the appropriate method for computing compensation, thereby resulting in a substantially reduced award. It was further argued that no addition towards future prospects has been made, and the amounts awarded under the conventional heads are also not in accordance with the settled principles of law. On these grounds, enhancement of the compensation has been prayed for.

4. Learned counsel for the respondent No.3 supported the award of the learned Tribunal, contended that the award had been passed after a proper and thorough appreciation of the evidence on record and therefore, did not warrant any interference by this Court.

OBSERVATIONS AND FINDINGS

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the complete records. On due consideration of the findings recorded by the learned Tribunal, particularly on the issue of negligence and fastening of liability, I find no reason to take a different view. The findings on those aspects are accordingly affirmed.

However, the core issue arising in the appeal pertains to the reassessment of the quantum of compensation.

6. Firstly, with regard to the income of the deceased, the same is required to be determined in accordance with the law now settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. In Hitesh Nagjibhai Patel v. Bababhai Nagjibhai Rabari, 2025 INSC 1070, Kajal v. Jagdish Chand, (2020) 4 SCC 413, and Baby Sakshi Greola v. Manzoor Ahmad Simon, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3692, it has been categorically held that in cases involving the death of a minor child, the assessment of loss of income cannot proceed on the assumption that the child was a non-earning person. It has been authoritatively laid down that notional income must be determined by adopting, at the very least, the minimum wages notified for a skilled worker in the concerned State for the relevant period, having regard to the child’s future potential and prospects. Applying the a