Anil Kumar And ORS v. Nathu Lal And ORS
- 1IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 233 FAO-1233-2019 (O&M) Date of decision: 18.02.2026 Anil Kumar and others ...Appellant(s) Vs.
Nathu Lal and others
...Respondent(s)
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA Present:- Mr. Arun Singhal, Advocate for the appellants. Mr. Bhisham Kumar, Advocate for respondent No.1. Ms. Ritu Punj, Advocate and Mr. Sahaj Punj, Advocate for respondent No.3-Insurance Co.
*** NIDHI GUPTA, J.
The present appeal has been filed by the claimants seeking enhancement of compensa3on of Rs.7,02,000/- awarded by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Panipat (hereina7er referred to as "the learned Tribunal") vide Award dated 02.05.2018 passed in MVA Pe33on No. 08 dated 29.01.2016 filed under Sec3ons 166 and 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, (hereina7er referred to as "the Act"). The 4 claimants are the 50-year-old husband; 25-year-old son; 18-year-old son; and married daughter of the deceased Kusum, who was 45 years old at the 3me of accident. 2.
Brief facts of the case are that the learned Tribunal on the basis of pleadings and evidence adduced before it concluded that the deceasedKusum had died due to the injuries suffered by her in a motor vehicular
- 2accident that took place on 02.12.2015 due to the rash and negligent driving of a Canter bearing registra3on No. HR67A-0087 (hereina7er "the offending vehicle") being driven by respondent No.1; owned by respondent No.2; and insured by respondent No.3. The above said compensa3on was awarded along with interest @ 7.5% per annum. Respondents No.1 to 3 were held jointly and severally liable to pay the amount of compensa3on. 3.
Learned counsel for the appellants seeks enhancement of compensa3on by submiEng that learned Tribunal had taken income of the deceased on the lower side as only Rs.4,000/- per month. Learned counsel submits that it was clear pleaded case of the appellant that prior to the accident, deceased was doing work of s3tching and sewing and was expert lady tailor and was earning Rs.15,000/- p.m. It is submiGed that even if it is taken the avoca3on and income of the deceased is not proved, even then as per the relevant Minimum Wage No3fica3on applicable w.e.f. 01.01.2015, minimum wage for unskilled worker was Rs.5,812.75 p.m. The said No3fica3on is handed over in Court, which is taken on record. It is submiGed that therefore, income of the deceased has been taken on the lower side. Further, nothing has been awarded by way of future prospects; and nothing has been awarded towards loss of consor3um.
4.
It is accordingly prayed that the present Appeal be allowed; and the compensa3on be enhanced in above terms.
5.
Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.1 and respondent No.3-Insurance Company oppose submissions made on behalf of the appellants and submit that the impugned Award suffers from no infirmity as
- 3the compensa3on awarded to the appellants is just and fair. Hence, the present appeal deserves to be dismissed.
6.
No other argument is raised on behalf of the par3es. I have heard learned counsel and perused the case file in great detail. I find some merit in the submissions advanced on behalf of learned counsel for the appellants. 7.
It has already been no3ced above that it was the pleaded case of the appellants that the deceased was an expert lady tailor and was earning Rs.15,000/- p.m. However, as admiGed by learned counsel for the appellants, no documentary evidence such as passbook of the bank account of the deceased has been brought on record by the appellants to prove the said avoca3on or income. As such, learned Tribunal has assessed no3onal income of the deceased as Rs.4,000/- p.m. However, as per the Minimum Wage No3fica3on issued by the State of Haryana applicable w.e.f. 01.01.2015, minimum wage of unskilled labourer is shown to be Rs.5,812.75 p.m. Thus, income of deceased is assessed as Rs.5,812.75 rounded off to Rs.5,812/- p.m. 8.
Further, the age of the deceased was determined to be 45 years on the date of accident on the basis of her Post Mortem Report Ex.P19. Accordingly, learned Tribunal was required to make addi3on of 25% towards future prospects. However, the same has not been done. Learned Tribunal has correctly applied mul3plier of 14. Under the conven3onal heads, learned Tribunal has awarded Rs.15,000/- for transporta3on and last rites; and Rs.15,000/- for loss of estate. Nothing has been awarded by learned Tribunal towards loss of consor3um. Further, as per recent judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Hasina Yasmin v. Na8onal Insurance Co. Ltd., (SC) ; Law
- 4Finder Doc ID # 2826989, for all accidents that took place prior to 2017, only an amount of Rs.40,000/- each was to be awarded towards consor3um and Rs.15,000/- each towards loss of estate and funeral expenses. 9.
Furthermore, ld. Tribunal has not made any deduc3on towards personal expenses. As per judgment passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Deep Shikha v. Na8onal Insurance Company Ltd., (SC) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2729764 it is held that "Compensaon under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Married daughter of deceased not entled to compensaon for loss of dependency unless proven financial dependency." In the present case, the said claimant no.4 is the married daughter of the deceased. Claimant No.2 is 25year-old son and claimant No. 3 is 18-year-old son being major, cannot be held to be dependent upon the deceased. In any event, the said claimants would first be dependent upon their father/claimant No.1. In this situa3on, a deduc3on of 50% is liable to be made towards personal expenses.
I am supported in this by judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Jitender Kumar v. Sanjay Prasad, (SC) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2746903 where, in iden3cal case is it is held that the claimants being legal representa3ves of the deceased are en3tled to apply for compensa3on. However, as their dependency upon the deceased is not proved, deduc3on of 50% is to be made. 10.
Further, the claimants No.1, 2 and 3 are en3tled to Rs.40,000/- each towards loss of consor3um. Accordingly, compensa3on payable to the claimants is reassessed in the following manner:-
- 5Sr.No. Details Before the Tribunal Revised compensa8on 1.
Income Rs.4,000/-per month Rs.5,812/- per month 2.
Annual Income Rs.48,000/- per annum Rs.69,744/- per annum 3.
25% future prospects Nil Rs.87,180/- (Rs.69,744 +Rs.17,436) 4.
1/3rd deduc3on Nil Rs.58,120/- (Rs.87,18029,060) 5.
Mul3plier of 14 Rs.6,72,000/- (Rs.48,000 x 14) Rs.8,13,680/- (Rs.58,120 x 14) 6.
Loss of consor3um Nil Rs. 1,20,000/- Rs.40,000/- each to claimants No. 1 to 3) 7.
Transporta3on and last rites expenses Rs.15,000/- Rs.15,000/- 8.
Loss of estate Rs.15,000/- Rs.15,000/- 9.
Total Rs.7,02,000/- Rs.9,63,680/- 10.
Enhanced compensa3on Rs.9,63,680-Rs.7,02,000 = Rs.2,61,680/- 11.
Interest 7.5% per annum 7.5% per annum 11.
Keeping in view the above noted and factual legal posi3on; the present Appeal is allowed in the above terms. 12.
Pending applica3on(s) if any also stand(s) disposed of. 18.02.2026 (NIDHI GUPTA) Divyanshi JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned:
Yes/No Whether reportable:
Yes/No