Saroj And Others v. Bajinder Singh And Others

 







IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

FAO-3468-2025 (O&M) Date of decision: 15.01.2026 Smt. Saroj and others ...Appellants

Versus

Bajinder Singh and others

...Respondents

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA

Present:

Ms. Harmanpreet Kaur, Advocate for the appellants. **** DEEPAK GUPTA, J. (ORAL) CM-11061-CII-2025 


   
 !"
#!

 

$
!
%&   


$ "

   
$
!'
$
(
'

$)
!
!*
+!" *
 "
!
"! 

&!  !

!
   ,
!
&!
  -!

!'
$
(
'

$)
!
!


 ! *
FAO-3468-2025 One Sukhpal lost life in a motor vehicular accident, which took place on 01.01.2023, due to rash and negligent driving of Haryana Roadways Bus No.HR-56-B-3577. His wife and two children filed a pe77on under Sec7on 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act seeking compensa7on from driver, owner and insurer of the offending vehicle. Learned Tribunal a<er apprecia7ng the evidence on record, awarded the compensa7on of Rs.9,99,000/- payable jointly and severally by the respondents along with interest.

2.

Not sa7sfied with the quantum of compensa7on, the claimants have approached this Court seeking enhancement. 3.

The only point raised by learned counsel is that income of the deceased has been taken by the Tribunal on the lower side, inasmuch as, deceased was an agriculturist and therefore, his income taken by the Tribunal to be Rs.10,532/- is on the lower side and that this income should YOGESH MEHTA 2026.01.15 17:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

 





 
have been taken to be higher.

4.

A perusal of the award would reveal that no7onal income of the deceased has been taken based upon the minimum wages applicable at the relevant 7me in the absence of any cogent proof regarding the actual earning of the deceased. Learned counsel for the appellants concedes that no documentary evidence was produced regarding the income of the deceased. Merely because deceased was an agriculturist or used to run a dairy farm as is contended, the income could not be assumed to be more than the minimum wages at the relevant 7me for unskilled labour, par7cularly when no evidence was produced regarding educa7onal or technical qualifica7on of the deceased.

5.

As such, the appellants failed to make out any case for enhancement.

6.

Dismissed.

15.01.2026 (DEEPAK GUPTA) Yogesh JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned:- Yes/No Whether reportable:- Yes/No YOGESH MEHTA 2026.01.15 17:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document