IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

226 FAO-1617-2003 Reserved on: 09.04.2026 Pronounced on:21.04.2026 ` Uploaded on:23.04.2026 Inderjit Kaur and others .…Appellants Versus Mohammed Shaban and others ……Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AMARINDER SINGH GREWAL ****

Present: Mr. Surinder Garg, Advocate, for the appellants Mr. Vinod Gupta, Advocate, for the respondent No.3 (Insurance Company)

****

AMARINDER SINGH GREWAL, J.

1. The present appeal has been filed by the appellants–claimants seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Hoshiarpur (hereinafter “the Tribunal”), vide ₹

award dated 04.12.2002, whereby a sum of 3,60,000/- was granted on account of the death of Ram Pal Singh, husband of the appellant No.1, due to rash and negligent driving of respondent No.2.

2. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the learned Tribunal has erred in law and on facts in assessing the income of the deceased at a meagre figure and in ignoring the material evidence showing that the deceased, namely Rampal Singh, who died in a motor vehicular accident dated 27.11.1998 while driving DCM Toyota vehicle No. HR- 26A-7675 near village Basantpura, was owner-cum-driver of the said vehicle and earning about Rs.10,000/- per month, and thus the compensation awarded is liable to be enhanced. Further, it has been wrongly held that the deceased was contributing only a small portion to the family whereas the evidence on record clearly establishes that he was about 35–40 years of age and was the sole breadwinner supporting his wife, three minor children and dependent mother. Furthermore, the application of multiplier is erroneous as the learned Tribunal has taken the age incorrectly and applied a lower multiplier without proper basis and has further failed to award just and reasonable compensation under conventional heads including funeral and last rites expenses. Lastly, no addition towards future prospects, resulting in a grossly inadequate award which deserves to be modified and enhanced.

3. At the outset, learned counsel for respondent No.3-Insurance Company submitted that the award passed by the learned Tribunal does not suffer from any irregularity or infirmity, and that the findings recorded therein are well-reasoned on the basis of the material available before the learned Tribunal. It is accordingly contended that no ground is made out for interference in appeals.

4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and examined the record, with their able assistance.

5. The findings of the learned Tribunal with respect to the age and income of the deceased are affirmed. However, the learned tribunal has completely omitted future prospects, deductions have been made inaccurately and no award under conventional heads has been given by the learned Tribunal. Consequently, the quantum of compensation deserves to be reassessed in the light of the settled principles governing motor accident claims.

6. Therefore, the deceased was 40 years of age, as reflected in the ₹

post-mortem report and was earning 3,000/- per month. In terms of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi and others 2017 (16) SCC 680, an addition towards future prospects @ 40% (40% of ₹

3,000 =

₹

1,200 /-

₹

further annual income comes to 50,400 /-) is liable to be made. Since the deceased left behind his wife, 3 minor children, and mother, hence ₹ ₹ ₹

deduction of 1/4th (Annual dependency = 50,400 – 12,600 = 37,800/-) towards personal and living expenses is required to be made in accordance with the principles laid down in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation 2009 (6) SCC 121. The multiplier of 15 applied by the learned Tribunal is in consonance with the principles laid down in Sarla Verma(supra) and, therefore, the same is affirmed. (37,800 × 15 =

₹

5,67,000/-)

7. In addition, thereto, the appellants are also entitled to compensation under the conventional heads, ea