2026 Meena and a & Anr. v. Ramesh Kum sh Kumar & Anr.

The appellant-claimants have filed the present appeal seeking enhancemen cement of the compensation of ₹8,02 8,02,600/- awarded by the Motor Accident Cla ent Claims Tribunal, Bhiwani (for sho or short ‘the learned Tribunal’) vide Award dated dated 22.09.2014, passed in MACT ACT Petition No. 22 of 2014 dated

25.02.2014 2014 filed under Section 166 of the the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The 02 claimants imants are the parents of deceased-Vi ld at Vikas who was 23 years old at the time of a e of accident.

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-Vi Vikas, had died in a motor vehicul e on ehicular accident that took place on

08.09.2013 2013 due to the rash and negligent gligent driving of Tractor bearing registration ation No. HR-16-L-2104 (hereinafter in after referred to as ‘the offending RISHU KATARIA 2026.02.27 19:55 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. FAO-6233 33-2015 (O&M) -2- vehicle’) ow owned and driven by responden ondent No.1-Ramesh Kumar; and insured by d by respondent No. 2-Insurance C ance Company. Learned Tribunal awarded the the above compensation along wi ng with interest @ 6% per annum from the d the date of filing the claim pet petition till actual realization. Respondents ndents No. 1 and 2 were held lia t of eld liable to pay the amount of compensatio nsation jointly and severally.

Learned counsel for the appe t of appellants seeks enhancement of compensatio nsation by submitting that income of me of the deceased has been taken on the lowe lower side as only ₹4800/- per mo er month. It is submitted that the deceased wa ed was working as Conductor and and was earning ₹15,000/- per month. Yet, Yet, the learned Tribunal had assesse assessed the income of the deceased as only ₹48 800/- per month. Learned counse ounsel for the claimants relies upon the relevant evant Minimum Wages Notification is ation issued by the State of Haryana applicable w able w.e.f. 01.07.2013, to submit that tion, it that as per the said Notification, income of a e of a skilled worker is ₹5601.51 (ro t is, .51 (rounded off to ₹5600/-). It is, therefore, su ore, submitted that monthly income o o be ome of the deceased deserves to be enhanced. It is further submitted that unde under the conventional heads the learned Trib d Tribunal has awarded only ₹25,000 25,000/- towards funeral expenses; and nothing thing has been awarded by way of c y of consortium, loss of estate; and the rate of te of interest should also be grante It is granted on the higher side. It is accordingly, ingly, prayed that the present appea appeal may be accepted and the amount of t of compensation awarded to the to the claimants deserves to be enhanced.

Per Contra, learned couns counsel respondent No. 2 vehemently ently opposes the submissions advanc

r the advanced by learned counsel for the RISHU KATARIA 2026.02.27 19:55 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. FAO-6233 33-2015 (O&M) -3- appellants and submits that in actual fact l fact compensation in excess has already been been awarded to the appellant-claim claimants, as the learned Tribunal had made an ade an addition of 50% towards futur s future prospects. However, as per law the same e same should be 40%. Accordingly, l ngly, learned counsel for respondent No. 2 prays f prays for dismissal of the present appe t appeal.

No other argument is raised on ed on behalf of the parties. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file in ile in detail. I find some merit in the a n the arguments advanced on behalf of the appell appellant.

Perusal of the record shows th e of ws that it was the pleaded case of the appellan pellant-claimants that prior to the ac the accident in question, deceased- Vikas was working as conductor and was e was earning ₹15,000/- per month. No doubt, oubt, no definite documentary evid y evidence was adduced by the claimants to nts to prove the income of the decea eceased; and only oral statement had been ma en made by claimant No. 1/mother of her of the deceased as PW-5 qua the alleged inco d income of the deceased. However, ever, the claimants have produced copy of cond f conductor’s licence Ex.P-18. It is m It is my view that therefore, income of the decea deceased ought to have been assessed ssessed at least as an skilled worker as per the r the relevant Minimum Wages Noti .e.f. s Notification, as applicable w.e.f.

01.07.2013.

2013. As such, income of the decease n as eceased ought to have been taken as ₹5600/- per per month, as per Minimum Wages .e.f. ages Notification applicable w.e.f.

01.07.2013

2013. Thus, income of the decease eceased is assessed as ₹5600/- per month.

The record further reveals th als that age of the deceased was determined t ined to be more than 23 years at the t gly, t the time of accident. Accordingly, RISHU KATARIA 2026.02.27 19:55 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. FAO-6233 33-2015 (O&M) -4- an addition o ition of 40% ought to have been mad ts in made towards future prospects in conformity w mity with judgment of the Hon’ble on’ble Supreme Court in National Insurance C ance Company Limited vs. Pranay ) 16 anay Sethi and others, (2017) 16 SCC 680; whereas the learned Tribunal h 50% unal has made an addition of 50% towards futu s future prospects, the same is liable t iable to be corrected.

Keeping in view of the age o age of the deceased, the learned Tribunal ha al has correctly applied multiplier as a tiplier of 18; as deceased was a Bachelor at lor at the time of accident, the learned learned Tribunal has correctly made deduction o tion of 50% towards personal exp al expenses. However, under the Conventiona ntional Heads, the learned Tribunal ibunal has only awarded a sum of ₹25,000/- to towards funeral expenses, the sai o be the said amount is also liable to be essed. re-assessed.

In view of the above discuss discussion, the present appeal is allowed; an and the amount of compensation sation payable to the claimants is re-assessed essed as per the structured formula mula enunciated by the Hon’ble Supreme Co me Court in Pranay Sethi’s case (su se (supra) and Sarla Verma vs. Delhi Trans Transport Corporation, Law Finde Finder Doc Id # 188882: in the following ma ing manner:- Details Income Before the Tribunal ₹4800/- per month Revised compensation ₹5600/- per month Future prosp prospects Deduction Multiplier Loss dependency 50% ₹4800+2400 = ₹7200/- 50% = ₹3600 Annual dependency ₹7200-3600 x 12= ₹ 43,200/- 18 ₹ 43,200/- x 18 = ₹7,77,600/- RISHU KATARIA 2026.02.27 19:55 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. 40% ₹5600+2240 = ₹7840/- 50% = ₹3920/- Annual dependency ₹7840-3920 x 12= ₹ 47,040/- 18 ₹ ₹8,46,720/- 47,040/- x 18 = FAO-6233 33-2015 (O&M) -5- Loss consortium Nil ₹40,000/- each i.e. 40,000 x 2 = ₹80,000/- al expenses f Estate Funeral expe Loss of Esta Total compensati Interest ensation ₹25,000/- Nil ₹8,02,600/- ₹15,000/- ₹15,000/- ₹9,56,720/- 6% per annum 6%

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

26.02.2026 ( NIDHI GUPTA ) JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No RISHU KATARIA 2026.02.27 19:55 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment.