THE HIG HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HA D HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH v. Smt. Preeti reeti & Ors.

Judgment

1. FAO-7411-2016 (O&M) FAO Present appeal has been filed filed by the appellant-Insurance Company ag any against the Award dated 09.08.20 .08.2016 passed by Motor Accident RISHU KATARIA 2026.02.27 19:51 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. FAO-7411 11-2016 (O&M) -2- Claims Tribu s Tribunal, Jhajjar (hereinafter referred al’) eferred to as ‘the learned Tribunal’) whereby Cla by Claim Petition No. 93 of 2015 2015 dated 15.05.2015filed under Section 166 n 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 19 ct, 1988 (for short-‘the Act’); filed by the claim claimants/respondents No. 1 to 4 he o 4 herein, has been partly allowed and compens mpensation of ₹23,12,000/- has been a been awarded to them.

2. FAO-350-2017 FAO Present cross-appeal has been f been filed by the claimants seeking enhancemen cement of compensation of ₹23,12,0 3,12,000/- awarded by the learned Tribunal vid al vide impugned Award dated09.08.2 09.08.2016 passed in Claim Petition No. 93 of 2 3 of 2015 dated 15.05.2015 filed und ed under Section 166 of the of the Act. The 04 he 04 claimants are the: i) 20-yea year-old widow; ii) 53-year-old father; iii) ; iii) 50-year-old mother; and iv) r of iv) 76-year-old grandmother of deceased-Sit Sitender Kumar Dass who was m was more than 24-years-old at the time of accid f accident.

1. Both the aforementioned cross

d of cross-appeals are being disposed of by this comm s common order as both appeals are are against the same Award dated

09.08.2016 2016; arise out of the same accident d ties, ident dated 04.04.2015; and parties, facts, and iss and issues involved in both the appeals appeals are identical. For the sake of brevity, the f y, the facts are being taken from FAO FAO-7411-2016 titled as ‘National Insurance C nce Company vs. Smt. Preeti and o and others’, and parties are being referred to as d to as per their litigative status in the in the said appeal.

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-Sit Sitender Kumar, had died in a m in a motor vehicular accident that took place lace 04.04.2015 due to the rash and n Car and negligent driving of Swift Car RISHU KATARIA 2026.02.27 19:51 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. FAO-7411 11-2016 (O&M) -3- bearing regi g registration no. HR-36-L-9683 (he ‘the (hereinafter referred to as ‘the offending v ng vehicle’) by respondent No.5 No.5-Anshul Goyal; owned by respondent dent No. 6-Chitranjan Goyal; and ; and insured by the appellant- Insurance Co nce Company. Learned Tribunal awa al awarded the above compensation along with i with interest @ 7.5% per annum from m from the date of filing the claim petition till a n till actual realization. All the respon respondents were held liable to pay the amount o ount of compensation jointly and seve d severally.

3. Learned counsel for the appel appellant/Insurance Company lays challenge to nge to the impugned Award only only on ground of quantum of compensatio nsation. It is submitted that the amoun amount of compensation to the tune of₹23,12,000 ,12,000/- awarded by the learned Tribu Tribunal is not sustainable in view of law laid laid down by the Hon’ble Apex C pex Court in National Insurance Company L any Limited vs. Pranay Sethi and o and others, (2017) 16 SCC 680, as per which future prospects ought to have b have been added @ 40%; whereas Tribunal had al had made an addition of 50% towar towards future prospects.

4. Further, it is submitted that fat hat father of the deceased was only 53 years ol ars old at the time of accident. Y . Yet he has been taken to be dependent up dent upon the deceased. Even grandmo andmother of the deceased has been held to be o be dependent upon him. Therefore, refore, in terms of judgment of the Hon’ble Su le Supreme Court in Sarla Ver Verma vs. Delhi Transport Corporation ration, Law Finder Doc Id # 18888 188882, deduction of 1/3rd ought to ht to have been m been made; whereas the learned Trib n of d Tribunal has made deduction of 1/4th toward towards personal expenses. It is a t is accordingly prayed that the impugned A ned Award be modified. RISHU KATARIA 2026.02.27 19:51 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. FAO-7411 11-2016 (O&M) -4-

5. Per Contra, learned counsel f nsel for the claimants vehemently opposed the ed the submissions advanced on beha n behalf of the appellant-Insurance Company an and submits that the Tribunal has n of al has correctly made deduction of one fourth as urth as father of the deceased although lthough being only 53 years old was dependent o dent on the deceased as he was total s totally bedridden. For this reason claimant No nt No. 4/grand-mother of the decease eceased as also dependent upon the deceased. T Therefore, deduction of 1/4th tow towards personal expenses was correctly ma tly made.

6. Learned counsel for the claiman laimants further seeks enhancement of compensa pensation amount by submitting tha ng that income of the deceased has not been cor en correctly assessed. It is pointed ou ted out that the claimants had duly proved on r on record that the deceased was w was working as an Electrician and drawing sala g salary of ₹9000/- per month. Decea Deceased was also earning ₹5000/- per month b onth by doing overtime with his emplo employer Company. Deceased was also working orking part time with the Petrol Fillin l Filling Station from where he was earning ₹680 6800/- per month. It is submitted itted that claimants have produced cogent evide t evidence to prove the aforesaid emp d employments and income of the deceased wh ed which have been ignored by the l y the learned Tribunal; and income has incorrect correctly been assessed as ₹9000/- per per month.

7. Moreover, nothing has been aw tion; een awarded towards transportation; and loss of ss of love and affection. Even nothin hing has been awarded towards loss of estate f estate. It is accordingly prayed that c d as that compensation be enhanced as above.

8. No other argument is raised on sed on behalf of the parties. I have heard learne learned counsel and perused the case f case file in detail. RISHU KATARIA 2026.02.27 19:51 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. FAO-7411 11-2016 (O&M) -5-

9. Perusal of the record reveals th e of eals that it was the pleaded case of the claimant aimants before the learned Tribunal t in bunal that prior to the accident in question, dec on, deceased was working as Electricia td., ectrician with ADS Spirits Pvt. Ltd., Bahadurgarh urgarh from where he was drawing ; wing salary of ₹9000/- per month; and was also as also getting ₹5000/- per month by th by doing overtime. To prove the said appointm ppointment and income of the deceased ceased, the claimants had examined PW-5 Yash Yashvir Kadian, Manager, ADS ADS Spirits Pvt. Ltd.; who had produced th the salary and other records rds regarding employment of the deceased. ed. PW5 had produced Appointme intment Letter Ex. PW-5/A from which it was it was proved that the deceased had jo had joined ADS Spirits Pvt. Ltd. on

01.07.2013 a 2013 as an Electrician Trainee. From 5/B From Salary Certificate Ex. PW-5/B and from ph om photocopy of the salary-sheet Ex eet Ex. PW-5/D it was proved that deceased wa ed was getting salary of ₹9000/- per m per month. However, the claimants were unable nable to prove any income of the dece e deceased by way of overtime with pirits. ADS Spirits

10. It is also asserted by the c the claimants that deceased was simultaneous aneously doing part time work as El as Electrician with the Hanumant Filling Stati Station and earning ₹6800/- per mo per month. To prove the same, the claimants ha nts had examined PW-2 Mangat Ram t Ram, Manager, Hanumant Filling Station who n who has stated that deceased had d had been working with the said filling statio station since 01.12.2012; and was g . In was getting ₹6800/- per month. In support, PW , PW-2 Mangat Ram had produced Ex. uced the attendance register as Ex. P-3 to Ex. P Ex. P-11. However, the said attendanc endance register was rightly rejected by the learne learned Tribunal as the same did not id not bear any seal or name of the office where where the deceased was working. PW ng. PW-2 had also not brought any RISHU KATARIA 2026.02.27 19:51 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. FAO-7411 11-2016 (O&M) -6- salary record record of the deceased to prove alleg d to e alleged income of the deceased to the tune of ne of ₹6800/- per month. PW-2 had also failed to show any Authority Le rity Letter from the Hanumant Fillin Filling Station, authorizing him to depose befo e before the learned Tribunal. In thes In these circumstances, the learned Tribunal has al has correctly assessed the income o come of the deceased as ₹9000/- per month. As s . As such, the argument of learned c rned counsel for the claimants that income of th e of the deceased has wrongly been as assessed is without merit.

11. Further, age of the deceased wa rs at ed was determined to be 24 years at the time of me of accident on the basis of c s of copies of secondary school examination tion (Ex. P-15 and Ex. P-16); copie (Ex. ; copies of diploma-certificates (Ex. P-17 to Ex. o Ex. P-19) and copy of his driving iving licence Ex. P-21 wherein the date of birth f birth of the deceased has been menti mentioned as 28.09.1990. Thus, as per law laid w laid down in Sarla Verma (supra) le to upra), addition of 40% is liable to be made tow de towards future prospects. However wever, the Tribunal has incorrectly made an ad an addition of 50% towards futur t in future prospect which is not in accordance w ance with law. The Tribunal has corre r of s correctly applied the multiplier of 18, keeping eping in view age of deceased.

12. As regards the deduction of on of 1/4th made by the learned Tribunal tow al towards personal expenses, the 04 04 claimants before the learned Tribunal are al are the: i) 20-year-old widow; ii) 53 ; ii) 53-year-old father; iii) 50-year- old mother; other; and iv) 76-year-old grandm grandmother of deceased-Sitender Kumar. It ha It has been contended on behalf of t lf of the claimants that the 53-year- old father w er was dependent upon his 24-year . year-old son as he was bedridden. However, n ver, no medical evidence in this re this regard was produced by the claimants to nts to show that claimant No. 2/53- -year-old father of the deceased RISHU KATARIA 2026.02.27 19:51 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. FAO-7411 11-2016 (O&M) -7- was depende ependent upon him. As such, he cann e cannot be taken to be dependent upon the dec the deceased. Resultantly, claimant N ant No. 4/76-year-old grandmother would first b first be dependent upon her son i.e. cl i.e. claimant No. 2 rather than upon deceased gra ed grandson. In this situation, deducti eduction of 1/3rd ought to have been towards pers s personal expenses; whereas the Tri n of he Tribunal had made deduction of 1/4th.

13. Under the conventional head heads, the learned Tribunal has awarded an ed an amount of ₹1,00,000/- towards wards loss of consortium; ₹25,000/- towards fune s funeral expenses. As per law, all th d to , all the 04 claimants are entitled to ₹40,000/- ea each under the Head loss of con of consortium; and ₹15,000/- each under the He the Heads of funeral expenses and loss nd loss of estate, respectively.

14. In view of the above discussion cussion, the FAO-7411-2016 filed by the Insura Insurance Company stands allowed wed; whereas the FAO-350-2017 filed by the y the claimants stands dismissed; an and compensation payable to the claimant imants is re-assessed as per the structu structured formula as follows: - Details Income Future prospects Deduction iplier Multiplier Loss dependency Loss consortium Before the Tribunal th or ₹9,000/- per month or ₹1,08,000/- per annum Revised compensation ₹9,000/- per month or ₹1,08,000/- per annum 50% ₹9000+4500 = ₹ 13,500 1/4th= ₹3375/-(13500- - 3375 = 10,125) annual s to dependency comes to - 10,125x12=₹1,21,500/- 18 ₹1,21,500/- x 18 = = ₹21,87,000/- ₹1,00,000/- ₹9000+3600 (12600- annual 40% =₹12,600/- 1/3rd= ₹4200/- 4200=8400) dependency 8400 x 12= ₹1,00,800/- 18 ₹1,00,800/- ₹18,14,400/- ₹40,000/- to each of the claimant i.e. 40,000 x 4 = ₹1,60,000/- 18 = x Funeral ₹25,000/- ₹15,000/- RISHU KATARIA 2026.02.27 19:51 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. FAO-7411 11-2016 (O&M) -8- of Estate expenses Loss of Esta Total compensat Interest ensation NIL ₹23,12,000/- ₹15,000/- ₹20,04,400/-

7.5% per annum

7.5% Pending application(s), if any, s any, shall also stand disposed of. A photocopy of this order be er be placed on file of connected

16. case. 2026

25.02.2026 ( NIDHI GUPTA ) JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No RISHU KATARIA 2026.02.27 19:51 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment.