IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO-1600-2017 (O&M)

Date of decision : 06.04.2026 Sultan Singh and others ...Appellants Versus Kanwar Pal and another ...Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE HARPREET KAUR JEEWAN Present: M. Akash Mehra, Advocate, for Mr. Ajay Ghangas, Advocate, for the appellants.

Mr. N.K. Chhokar, Advocate, for respondent No.1-driver.

None for respondent No.2-owner. HARPREET KAUR JEEWAN, J.

1. Appellants-claimants are seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Panipat (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Tribunal’), regarding the death of Pardeep (since deceased), in a roadside accident, which took place on 28.02.2013. 2. The Tribunal vide Award dated 28.07.2016, awarded compensation of Rs.5,04,000/- to the claimants, holding that Pardeep died due to the road-side accident which was a result of rash and negligent driving of the tractor-trolley bearing registration No.HRV-

4594, by respondent No.1.

2.2 The Tribunal considered the age of the deceased as 17 years; assessed the notional income of the deceased as Rs.3,000/- per month, and the respondents-driver & owner of the tractor-trolley were ordered to pay compensation to the appellant-claimants in the following manner:-

2.3 The present appeal, filed by the claimants seeking enhancement, has been contested by the driver and owner of the offending vehicle.

3. Learned counsel for the appellants contends that the deceased was minor and his age was 17 years at the time of the accident. The findings of the Tribunal treating the notional income of the deceased as Rs.3,000/- per month are erroneous. The income is to be treated on the basis of Minimum Wages Notification issued by the State Government for the relevant period. It is further contended that even the Future Prospects have not been added. Cites Sarla Verma & Ors. vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Ors., (2009) 6 SCC 121, National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors., (2017) 16 SCC 680 and Magma General Insurance Company Limited vs. Nanu Ramalias Chuhru Ram &

Ors., (2018) 18 SCC 130.

4. Per contra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.1-driver contends that appropriate compensation has already been awarded on the basis of the evidence on record and there is no scope for enhancement.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the paper book.

6. It is not disputed that age of the deceased was 17 years at the time of the accident. It has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in various judgments that taking notional income in the case of a minor is not the correct approach. In Kajal v. Jagdish Chand and others (2020) 4 SCC 413, where the age of the victim was 12 years, Hon’ble Apex Court discarded the method of treating notional income of the minor victim and considered the Minimum Wages applicable to a skilled worker and worked out the compensation. Similarly in Baby Sakshi Greola v. Manzoor Ahmad Simon and another, 2025 (1) RCR (Civil) 238, Hon’ble the Supreme Court held that in the cases of minor victims, taking notional income is not a correct approach. The decision in Baby Sakshi (supra) has been further upheld by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Karuna Parmar v. Prakash Sinha and others 2025 INSC, while calculating the income of the deceased-minor child. It was held as follows:-

“Deceased Child

14. Coming to the case of the deceased child, we are not inclined to accept the reasoning of the Tribunal on the yearly income. Recently, in Baby Sakshi Greola v. Manzoor ahmad Simon and another 2024 SCC Online SC 3692, J. B.R. Gavai, writing the bench, has elaborated that :

“29. This Court in the case of Kajal (supra) has held that taking notional income is not the correct approach. Instead, the minimum wages payable to a skilled workman in the concerned State has to be taken into consideration because, that would be the minimum amount which she would have earned on becoming a major; In this case, the minimum wage payable to a sk