FAO-1554 v. Harpreet Sin

Judgment

1. Prayer in this application fil on filed under Section 5 of the Limitation A tion Act, 1963is for condonation of d n of delay of 167 days in filing the accompanyin panying appeal.

3. Heard. For the reasons mentioned i h is ned in the application which is supported by rted by an affidavit, the same is allow s in s allowed and delay of 167 days in filing the pre the present appeal is condoned.

4. Needless to say, no interest wil will be payable to the appellant- claimants fo nts for the aforesaid period of 167 day 67 days. FAO-1554 1554-2025

1. The appellant-claimants have fi ave filed the present appeal seeking enhancemen cement of the compensation of ₹17,71 17,71,000/- awarded by the Motor Accident Cl ent Claims Tribunal, Ludhiana (for ) (for short ‘the learned Tribunal’) vide Award ward dated 09.05.2024, passed in MA in MACP Petition No. 155 of 2022 RISHU KATARIA 2026.02.26 19:59 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. FAO-1554 54-2025 (O&M) -2- filed under S nder Sections 166 and 140 of Moto Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The 06 claimants ar nts are the: i) 29-year-old widow; ii iii) ow; ii) 03 minor children; and iii) parents of de deceased Manoj Kumar Dass who ss who was 36 years old at the time ident. of accident.

2. Brief facts of the case are that re that the learned Tribunal on the basis of pl of pleadings and evidence adduce dduced before it concluded that deceased-Ma Manoj Kumar Dass, had died in a d in a motor vehicular accident that took place o lace on 25.01.2022 due to the rash an rash and negligent driving of Truck bearing regi g registration No. PB-23-T-1817 (he ‘the (hereinafter referred to as ‘the offending v ing vehicle’) by respondent No.1 No.1-Harpreet Singh; owned by respondent N dent No. 2-M/s Chankaya Dairy Pr iry Products Ltd.; and insured by respondent dent No. 3-Insurance Company. Le y. Learned Tribunal awarded the above compe compensation along with interest @ 7 st @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing the g the claim petition till actual realizat ealization. All the respondents were held liable to iable to pay the amount of compensat The pensation jointly and severally. The amount of co t of compensation is apportioned amo d amongst the claimants as under: -

1. La Laxmi Kumari (Widow) 2. Aman Kumar (minor son) 2. Am 3. Ju Juli Kumari (min (minor daughter) 4. Abhishek Kumar (minor son) 4. Ab 5. Chameliya Devi, mother 5. Ch 6. Ram Chander Dass, father 6. Ra 35% 15% 15% 15% 10% 10%

3. Learned counsel for the appe t of appellants seeks enhancement of compensatio nsation by submitting that the lea he learned Tribunal has wrongly assessed the ed the income of the deceased as It is as only ₹9000/- per month. It is submitted th tted that the appellants have proved roved on record that prior to the accident in q in question, the deceased was work s working as Printing Operator and was earning arning ₹20,000/- per month. Learned arned counsel submits that despite RISHU KATARIA 2026.02.26 19:59 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. FAO-1554 54-2025 (O&M) -3- this learned arned Tribunal had assessed the month d on monthly income of the deceased on the lower sid er side as only ₹9000/- per month.

4. Ld. counsel also submits that co compensation is to be enhanced as only spou y spousal consortium has been award ow. awarded to claimant No. 1-widow. Nothing has g has been paid by way of consortium ortium to claimants No. 2 to 6.

6. Heard. Notice of motion only to to respondent No. 3-Insurance Company, at any, at this stage.

On the asking of Court, Mr. Nee o is r. Neeraj Khanna, Advocate who is present in C t in Court accepts notice on behalf o half of respondent No. 3-Insurance Company. L . Learned counsel for respondent N dent No. 3 vehemently opposes the submissions ssions advanced by learned counsel f nsel for the appellants and submits that just an ust and fair compensation has alr as already been awarded to the appellants.

9. No other argument is raised on ed on behalf of the parties. I have heard learned counsel e in l and perused the case file in detail. I find I find some merit in the arguments uments advanced on behalf of the . appellants.

10. Perusal of the record shows th e of ws that it was the pleaded case of the appellant pellant-claimants that prior to the acci e accident in question, the deceased was workin orking as Operator of Printing Ma ng Machine in Ganga Acrowools Limited, G. d, G.T. Road, Village Kot Sekho Sekhon, Tehsil Khanna, District Ludhiana an and was earning ₹20,000/- per mo er month. In support, the appellants had produced oduced salary slip of the deceased as ed as Ex. C-8 as per which appellant was drawing rawing salary of ₹19,879/- per mont month. However, said salary slip RISHU KATARIA 2026.02.26 19:59 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. FAO-1554 54-2025 (O&M) -4- cannot be rel t be relied upon as no official from the m the said Company was examined by the claim e claimants to prove the alleged o ged occupation or income of the deceased. ed. Even no documentary proof in oof in the form of bank account statement of ent of the deceased was produced by ed by the appellants to substantiate their claim laim and to corroborate salary slip E No. slip Ex. C-8. Rather, claimant No. 1/widow of w of deceased as PW-1 had admi admitted that deceased had only studied up t d up to 8th standard; and he was no n or as not having any qualification or expertise in ise in any field; and that he was not 2 s not an income-tax assessee.PW-2 Rohit Ram, Ram, eye-witness has also admitted d itted during cross-examination that he did not k not know the qualification, age, or In occupation of the deceased. In this scenario enario, income of the deceased has d has been rightly assessed by the Tribunal as al as ₹9000/- per month as that of a la of a labourer.

11. Further, age of the deceased wa rs at was determined to be 36 years at the time of me of accident on the basis of . of Post-mortem Report Ex.P-2. Accordingly dingly, the learned Tribunal had made d made an addition of 40% towards future prosp prospects in conformity with judgm judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Na National Insurance Company Li ny Limited vs. Pranay Sethi and others, (201 , (2017) 16 SCC 680; and correctly a ectly applied multiplier of 15as per Sarla Verm Verma vs. Delhi Transport Corpor Id # orporation, Law Finder Doc Id #

188882. As As there were 06 claimants, the le , the learned Tribunal has correctly made deduct deduction of 1/3rd towards personal exp nal expenses.

12. However, under the Conven onventional Heads, learned Tribunal ha al has awarded a sum of ₹40,000 40,000/- towards loss of spousal consortium rtium only to claimant No. 1; ₹15,000 15,000/- towards loss of estate; and ₹15,000/- towards funeral expenses. Not s. Nothing has been awarded to RISHU KATARIA 2026.02.26 19:59 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. FAO-1554 54-2025 (O&M) -5- claimants No nts No. 2 to 6 towards loss of parenta o. 2 tal consortium (claimants No. 2 to 4) and fili nd filial consortium (claimants No. 5 d by No. 5 and 6). In view of law laid by the Hon’ble n’ble Apex Court in Sarla Verma’s c o. 2 ma’s case (supra), appellants No. 2 to 6 are enti re entitled to an amount of ₹40,000/ ,000/- each by way of parental and filial consort onsortium, respectively.

13. In view of the above discuss discussion, the present appeal is partly allo allowed and compensation paya payable to the appellants is re-assessed a essed as under:- Details Income Before the Tribunal ₹9,000/- per month or ₹1,08,000/- per annum Revised compensation ₹9,000/- ₹1,08,000/- per annum per month Future prospe prospects Deduction Multiplier Loss dependency of spousal Loss of sp consortium Loss of pa consortium of parental 40% ₹9000+3600 x 12=₹1,51,200/- 1/4th= ₹37,800/- per 1,51,200- 37,800 = 1,13,400/- 15 ₹1,13,400/- x 15 = ₹17,01,000/- ₹40,000/- to claimant No. 1/widow only Nil Loss consortium filial Nil Funeral expen l expenses f Estate Loss of Estat Total compensatio Interest nsation ₹15,000/- ₹15,000/- ₹17,71,000/-

7.5% per annum

7.5% 40% ₹9000+3600 x 12 = ₹1,51,200/- 1/4th = ₹37,800/- per annum 1,51,200-37,800 = 1,13,400/- 15 ₹1,13,400/- ₹17,01,000/- ₹40,000/- x 15 = ₹40,000/- each to claimants No. 2 to 4 (minor children) i.e. 40,000 x 3 = ₹1,20,000/- ₹40,000/- each to claimants No. 5 and 6 (parents of the deceased) 40,000 x 2 = ₹80,000/- ₹15,000/- ₹15,000/- ₹19,71,000/-

14. Pending application(s), if any, s any, shall also stand disposed of. 2026

25.02.2026 ( NIDHI GUPTA ) JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No RISHU KATARIA 2026.02.26 19:59 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment.