Ravinder Kumar And ORS v. Umed Singh And ORS

-1IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RAVINDER KUMAR AND ANR.

......Appellants VS.

UMED SINGH AND ORS.

......Respondents

Reserved on:- 07.05.2026

Pronounced on:- 11.05.2026 Uploaded on: 14.05.2026 Whether only the operative part of the judgment is pronounced? NO Whether full judgment is pronounced?

YES CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA

Present:

Mr. Chandarhas Yadav, Advocate for the appellants.

Mr. Kulbhushan Sharma, Advocate for respondent Nos.1 and 2.

Mr. Balraj Singh Dhull, Advocate and Mr. Pardeep Dhull, Advocate for respondent No.3.

**** SUDEEPTI SHARMA J.

1.

The present appeal has been preferred against the award dated 19.09.2009 passed in the claim petition filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (in short '1988 Act'), by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Rewari (in short 'the Tribunal') for enhancement of compensation, granted to the appellants/claimants to the tune of Rs.1,40,000/- along with interest @ 6 % per annum on account of death of deceased Smt. Shanti in a Motor Vehicular Accident, occurred on 09.01.2000.

-22.

As sole issue for determination in the present appeal is confined to quantum of compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal, a detailed narration of the facts of the case is not required to be reproduced and is skipped herein for the sake of brevity.

SUBMISSIONS OF LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES 3.

The learned counsel for the appellants/claimants contends that the compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal is on the lower side and deserves to be enhanced. Therefore, he prays that the present appeal be allowed and the compensation awarded to the appellants/claimants be enhanced, as per latest law. 4.

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent No.3 contends that the appellant has wrongly been made liable to pay the compensation to the claimants/appellants, since in his written statement as well as while arguing before the learned Tribunal, he had continuously been pleading that he was not the registered owner of the offending vehicle bearing No.HR-47-5001 on the date of accident. Despite this fact, the learned Tribunal while ignoring the submission made by the appellant, made him liable to pay the compensation. He, therefore, prays that the present appeal be allowed and the liability to pay compensation be affixed upon respondent Nos.1 and 2/registered owner of the offending vehicle. 5.

Learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2/registered owner of the offending vehicle contends that on the date of accident respondent No.3 was in the possession of the offending vehicle, therefore, he is solely liable to pay compensation to appellant Nos.1 and 2. He furthermore contends that he has filed separate appeal bearing No.FAO-5781-2009 titled as "Umed Singh and another Vs. Ravinder Kumar and others" challenging the liability to pay compensation as affixed upon respondent Nos.1 and 2 as well as respondent No.3 jointly and severely. He, therefore, prays that the present appeal be dismissed.

-36.

On the strength of aforesaid submissions, they pray that the present appeal be dismissed and the impugned award passed by the learned Tribunal be suitably modified by reducing the amount of compensation. 7.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the whole record of this case.

SETTLED LAW ON COMPENSATION 8.

Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another [(2009) 6 Supreme Court Cases 121], laid down the law on assessment of compensation and the relevant paras of the same are as under:- "30. Though in some cases the deduction to be made towards personal and living expenses is calculated on the basis of units indicated in Trilok Chandra, the general practice is to apply standardised deductions. Having a considered several subsequent decisions of this Court, we are of the view that where the deceased was married, the deduction towards personal and living expenses of the deceased, should be one-third (1/3rd) where the number of dependent family members is 2 to 3, one-fourth (1/4th) where the number of dependent family members is 4 to 6, and one-fifth (1/5th) where the number of dependent family members exceeds six.

31. Where the deceased was a bachelor and the claimants are the parents, the deduction follows a different principle. In regard to bachelors, normally, 50% is deducted as personal and living expenses, because it is assumed that a bachelor would tend to spend more on himself. Even otherwise, there is also the possibility of his getting married in a short time, in which event the contribution to

-4the parent(s) and siblings is likely to be cut drastically. Further, subject to evidence to the contrary, the father is likely to have his own income and will not be considered as a dependant and the mother alone will be considered as a dependant. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, brothers and sisters will not be considered as dependants, because they will either be independent and earning, or married, or be dependent on the father.

32. Thus even if the deceased is survived by parents and siblings, only d the mother would be considered to be a dependant, and 50% would be treated as the personal and living expenses of the bachelor and 50% as the contribution to the family. However, where the family of the bachelor is large and dependent on the income of the deceased, as in a case where he has a widowed mother and large number of younger non-earning sisters or brothers, his personal and living expenses may be restricted to one-third and contribution to the family will be taken as two-third. * * * * * *

42. We therefore hold that the multiplier to be used should be as mentioned in Column (4) of the table above (prepared by applying Susamma Thomas3, Trilok Chandra and Charlie), which starts with an operative multiplier of 18 (for the age groups of 15 to 20 and 21 to 25 years), reduced by one unit for every five years, that is M-17 for 26 to 30 years, M-16 for 31 to 35 years, M-15 for 36 to 40 years, M-14 for 41 to 45 years, and M-13 for 46 to 50 years, then reduced by two units for every five years, that is, M-11 for 51 to 55

-5years, M-9 for 56 to 60 years, M-7 for 61 to 65 years and M-5 for 66 to 70 years.

9.

Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors. [(2017) 16 SCC 680] has clarified the law under Sections 166, 163-A and 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, on the following aspects:- (A) Deduction of personal and living expenses to determine multiplicand;

(B) Selection of multiplier depending on age of deceased; (C) Age of deceased on basis for applying multiplier; (D) Reasonable figures on conventional heads, namely, loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses, with escalation; (E) Future prospects for all categories of persons and for different ages: with permanent job; self-employed or fixed salary. The relevant portion of the judgment is reproduced as under:- "52. As far as the conventional heads are concerned, we find it difficult to agree with the view expressed in Rajesh2. It has granted Rs.25,000 towards funeral expenses, Rs 1,00,000 towards loss of consortium and Rs 1,00,000 towards loss of care and guidance for minor children. The head relating to loss of care and minor children does not exist. Though Rajesh refers to Santosh Devi, it does not seem to follow the same. The conventional and traditional heads, needless to say, cannot be determined on percentage basis because that would not be an acceptable criterion. Unlike determination of income, the said heads have to be quantified. Any

-6quantification must have a reasonable foundation. There can be no dispute over the fact that price index, fall in bank interest, escalation of rates in many a field have to be noticed. The court cannot remain oblivious to the same. There has been a thumb rule in this aspect. Otherwise, there will be extreme difficulty in determination of the same and unless the thumb rule is applied, there will be immense variation lacking any kind of consistency as a consequence of which, the orders passed by the tribunals and courts are likely to be unguided. Therefore, we think it seemly to fix reasonable sums. It seems to us that reasonable figures on conventional heads, namely, loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses should be Rs.15,000, Rs.40,000 and Rs.15,000 respectively.

The principle of revisiting the said heads is an acceptable principle. But the revisit should not be fact-centric or quantum-centric. We think that it would be condign that the amount that we have quantified should be enhanced on percentage basis in every three years and the enhancement should be at the rate of 10% in a span of three years. We are disposed to hold so because that will bring in consistency in respect of those heads.

* * * * * 59.3. While determining the income, an addition of 50% of actual salary to the income of the deceased towards future prospects, where the deceased had a permanent job and was below the age of 40 years, should be made. The addition

-7should be 30%, if the age of the deceased was between 40 to 50 years. In case the deceased was between the age of 50 to 60 years, the addition should be 15%. Actual salary should be read as actual salary less tax.

59.4. In case the deceased was self-employed (or) on a fixed salary, an addition of 40% of the established income should be the warrant where the deceased was below the age of 40 years. An addition of 25% where the deceased was between the age of 40 to 50 years and 10% where the deceased was between the age of 50 to 60 years should be regarded as the necessary method of computation. The established income means the income minus the tax component.

59.5. For determination of the multiplicand, the deduction for personal and living expenses, the tribunals and the courts shall be guided by paras 30 to 32 of Sarla Verma4 which we have reproduced hereinbefore.

59.6. The selection of multiplier shall be as indicated in the Table in Sarla Verma1 read with para 42 of that judgment. 59.7. The age of the deceased should be the basis for applying the multiplier.

59.8. Reasonable figures on conventional heads, namely, loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses should be Rs 15,000, Rs 40,000 and Rs 15,000 respectively. The aforesaid amounts should be enhanced at the rate of 10% in every three years."

-810.

Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Magma General Insurance Company Limited Vs. Nanu Ram alias Chuhru Ram & Others [2018(18) SCC 130] after considering Sarla Verma (supra) and Pranay Sethi (Supra) has settled the law regarding consortium. Relevant paras of the same are reproduced as under:- "21. A Constitution Bench of this Court in Pranay Sethi2 dealt with the various heads under which compensation is to be awarded in a death case. One of these heads is loss of consortium. In legal parlance, "consortium" is a compendious term which encompasses "spousal consortium", "parental consortium", and "filial consortium". The right to consortium would include the company, care, help, comfort, guidance, solace and affection of the deceased, which is a loss to his family. With respect to a spouse, it would include sexual relations with the deceased spouse.

21.1. Spousal consortium is generally defined as rights pertaining to the relationship of a husband-wife which allows compensation to the surviving spouse for loss of "company, society, cooperation, affection, and aid of the other in every conjugal relation".

21.2. Parental consortium is granted to the child upon the premature death of a parent, for loss of "parental aid, protection, affection, society, discipline, guidance and training".

21.3. Filial consortium is the right of the parents to compensation in the case of an accidental death of a child.

-9An accident leading to the death of a child causes great shock and agony to the parents and family of the deceased. The greatest agony for a parent is to lose their child during their lifetime. Children are valued for their love, affection, companionship and their role in the family unit.

22. Consortium is a special prism reflecting changing norms about the status and worth of actual relationships. Modern jurisdictions world-over have recognised that the value of a child's consortium far exceeds the economic value of the compensation awarded in the case of the death of a child. Most jurisdictions therefore permit parents to be awarded compensation under loss of consortium on the death of a child. The amount awarded to the parents is a compensation for loss of the love, affection, care and companionship of the deceased child.

23. The Motor Vehicles Act is a beneficial legislation aimed at providing relief to the victims or their families, in cases of genuine claims. In case where a parent has lost their minor child, or unmarried son or daughter, the parents are entitled to be awarded loss of consortium under the head of filial consortium. Parental consortium is awarded to children who lose their parents in motor vehicle accidents under the Act. A few High Courts have awarded compensation on this count. However, there was no clarity with respect to the principles on which compensation could be awarded on loss of filial consortium.

-1024. The amount of compensation to be awarded as consortium will be governed by the principles of awarding compensation under "loss of consortium" as laid down in Pranay Sethi2. In the present case, we deem it appropriate to award the father and the sister of the deceased, an amount of Rs 40,000 each for loss of filial consortium. 11.

A perusal of the impugned award shows that the age of the deceased was 53 years at the time of accident. The factum of age is not disputed by either of the party before this Court. Consequently, the age of the deceased is taken as 53 years by placing reliance upon post mortem report. 12.

A further perusal of the award reveals that deceased was stated to be a homemaker. Her monthly income was asserted to be Rs.5,000/- per month by doing agricultural work and Rs.1,747/- per month as pension. To substantiate her income as drawn from pension, photocopy of pension book Ex.P-3 and pension order Ex.P-4 was placed on record by the learned Tribunal, however, no documentary proof regarding income from agriculture cattle rearing was produced by the learned Tribunal. However, the learned Tribunal has erred in taking notional income of deceased housewife as Rs.2,100/-per month. 13.

So far as assessing notional income of housewife is concerned, it is apposite to rely upon recent judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered upon Sunita and others Vs. Vinod Singh and order, 2025 INSC 366, wherein, the Hon'ble Apex Court while assessing the monthly income of housewife, held that notional income of deceased housewife should include family pension and homemaker's contribution. The relevant extract of the same is reproduced as under:-

-11- "10. The issue, in our opinion, has to be seen in a narrow compass related to the monthly income and multiplier within the parameters of the formula fixed in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation, (2009) 6 SCC 121 as also with regard to the loss of love and affection, loss of care and guidance to minor and deduction for personal expenses.

11. The amount arrived at by the High Court of the monthly income being Rs. 5,819/- (Rupees Five Thousand Eight Hundred and Nineteen) as against the claim of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) appears to be on the lower side as the total earning of the deceased from family pension itself ought to have been considered which itself would come to Rs. 5,137/- (Rupees Five Thousand One Hundred and ThirtySeven) to which the notional wages as a home maker had to be added, which we find is reasonable as has been taken by the High Court at Rs. 2,500/- (Rupees Two Thousand Five Hundred). Thus, the monthly income would come to Rs. 7,637/- (Rupees Seven Thousand Six Hundred and ThirtySeven), which we are inclined to round off at Rs. 7,000/- (Rupees Seven Thousand).

Coming to the multiplier factor which is dependent on the age, there is sufficient indication that the deceased was aged about 45 years as per the PostMortem Report which is a scientific assessment of the age of the deceased. The purported discrepancy in the age with regard to that of the claimant and the deceased is erroneous for the reason that when the claim was filed, appellant no.1 was aged about 30 years and a difference of 15 years between the daughter-in-law and the mother-in-law cannot be said to be totally devoid of reality given the contextual and prevalent societal norms in vogue at the time of marriage of the deceased which could have been at least 25 to 30 years prior to her death i.e., in or about the 1970s.

-12Mortem Report. Thus, we are inclined to grant her the benefit of multiplier of 14 taking her age as 45 years. With regard to the loss of love and affection, Pranay Sethi (supra) grants Rs. 40,000/- (Rupees Forty Thousand) per head with escalation of 10% every three years for loss of consortium which has been interpreted in Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram, (2018) 18 SCC 130 to include spousal, parental, and filial consortium. Thus, there being five claimants the amount shall be [Rs. 48,000/- x 5] which comes to Rs. 2,40,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs and Forty Thousand) payable under the head of loss of love and affection.

12. We have taken the afore-view based on the material before the Court and what has come during trial as also the formula approved and invoked as per the earlier precedents of this Court, including those referred to hereinbefore. Under the head of funeral expenses and transportation also, the amount is increased from Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) to Rs. 20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand). No payment shall be made under the head of loss of care and guidance of minors as we factored in the same under the head of loss of love and affection with regard to all claimants. The MACT and so also the High Court, however, have not borne in mind the aspect qua loss of future prospects.

13. In Rajendra Singh (supra), the Court held: '9. The first deceased was a housewife aged about 30 years. In Lata Wadhwa v. State of Bihar [Lata Wadhwa v. State of Bihar, (2001) 8 SCC 197], this Court had observed that considering the multifarious services rendered by housewives, even on a modest estimation, the income of a housewife between the age group of 34 to 59 years who were active in life should be assessed at Rs. 36,000 p.a. A distinction was also drawn with regard to elderly ladies in the age group of 62 to 72 who would be more adept in discharge of

-13housewife duties by age and experience, and the value of services rendered by them has been taken at Rs. 20,000 p.a.

10. In Arun Kumar Agrawal v. National Insurance Co. Ltd. [Arun Kumar Agrawal v. National Insurance Co. Ltd., (2010) 9 SCC 218: (2010) 3 SCC (Civ) 664: (2010) 3 SCC (Cri) 1313], the Tribunal assessed the notional income of the housewife at Rs. 5000 per month, but without any rationale or reasoning concluded that she was a non-earning member and reduced the same to Rs. 2500, which was affirmed [Arun Kumar Agrawal v. National Insurance Co. Ltd., FAFO No. 2408 of 2003, order dated 30-42004 (All)] by the High Court. Disapproving the same and restoring the assessed income, this Court observed at paras 26 and 27 as follows : (SCC pp. 237-38) "26. In India the courts have recognised that the contribution made by the wife to the house is invaluable and cannot be computed in terms of money.

The gratuitous services rendered by the wife with true love and affection to the children and her husband and managing the household affairs cannot be equated with the services rendered by others. A wife/mother does not work by the clock. She is in the constant attendance of the family throughout the day and night unless she is employed and is required to attend the employer's work for particular hours. She takes care of all the requirements of the husband and children including cooking of food, washing of clothes, etc. She teaches small children and provides invaluable guidance to them for their future life. A housekeeper or maidservant can do the household work, such as cooking food, washing clothes and utensils, keeping the house clean, etc.

-14who renders selfless service to her husband and children.

27. It is not possible to quantify any amount in lieu of the services rendered by the wife/mother to the family i.e. the husband and children. However, for the purpose of award of compensation to the dependants, some pecuniary estimate has to be made of the services of the housewife/mother. In that context, the term "services" is required to be given a broad meaning and must be construed by taking into account the loss of personal care and attention given by the deceased to her children as a mother and to her husband as a wife. They are entitled to adequate compensation in lieu of the loss of gratuitous services rendered by the deceased. The amount payable to the dependants cannot be diminished on the ground that some close relation like a grandmother may volunteer to render some of the services to the family which the deceased was giving earlier."

11. The notional income of the first deceased is therefore held to be Rs. 5000 per month at the time of death. The compensation on that basis with a deduction of 1/4th i.e. Rs. 15,000 towards personal expenses with a multiplier of 17 is assessed at Rs. 7,65,000. If the deceased had survived, in view of observations in Lata Wadhwa [Lata Wadhwa v. State of Bihar, (2001) 8 SCC 197], her skills as a matured and skilled housewife in contributing to the welfare and care of the family and in the upbringing of the children would have only been enhanced by time and for which reason we hold that the appellants shall be entitled to future prospects @ 40% in addition to the loss of consortium and future expenses already granted. We therefore

-15assess the total compensation payable to the appellants in the first appeal at Rs. 11,96,000.'

(emphasis supplied)

14. We express our respectful agreement with Rajendra Singh (supra) and, accordingly, assess loss of future prospects at 25%, bearing in mind the dicta in Pranay Sethi (supra). In undertaking the exercise of computation of compensation, we have verily reminded ourselves that the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is a beneficial and welfare legislation and it is our duty to award 'just compensation' [refer Ningamma v. United India Insurance Company Limited, (2009) 13 SCC 710].

15. We maintain the interest granted by the High Court at 7.5% per annum from the date of the petition as the incident is of the year 2003. Though, the Courts below have taken the deduction for personal expenses to be 1/5th, however, having regard to the law laid down in Sarla Verma (supra) we take the same to be 1/4th and quantify the compensation as per the chart below:

S. No.

Head of Compensation Amount Monthly Income Rs. 7,000/- Future Prospects @ 25% Rs. 1,750/- Deduction for Personal Expenses 1/4th Multiplier Loss of dependency Rs. 11,02,500/- Expenses for funeral and transportation Rs. 20,000/- Loss of love and affection Rs. 2,40,000/- Loss of estate Rs. 20,000/- Total Rs. 13,82,500/- 14.

Furthermore, this Court while placing reliance upon judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in FAO-1292-2006, titled as 'Jasbir Singh and another Vs. Surjit Singh and others', decided on 22.03.2018 while assessing the notional income of the housewife has held as under:- "In FAO No. 218 of 2014, a co-ordinate Bench of this Court, while relying upon the principles laid down in Lata Wadhwa

-16and others v. State of Bihar and others 2001(4) RCR(Civil) 673), made the following observations:- "Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that even while noticing that the income of a skilled worker in 2012 was approximately Rs.8000/- the Tribunal has wrongly assessed the income of the deceased as Rs.9000/-. As per him once the notional income had been taken a deduction had to be made for personal expenses. This argument is flawed. In Lata Wadhwa and others v. State of Bihar and others reported as 2001(4) RCR (Civil) 673 (where the accident had taken place in 1981) the Hon'ble Supreme Court evaluated the contribution of a house wife at Rs.3000/-per month. The accident in the present case took place after 23 years.

In my considered opinion to tag a house wife as a 'skilled worker' alone does not do complete justice to her multifarious role as a home manager. Keeping in view the lapse of 23 years between the accident in the case of Lata Wadhwa and the present accident and my conclusion that a house wife is something more than a mere skilled worker it would not be unreasonable to estimate the contribution of the deceased in the present case at a higher figure. On the whole I see no reason for reducing the quantum."

7. I find sufficient reason to follow the judgment in FAO No. 218 of 2014, particularly as I am informed that the Special Leave Petition (SLP) filed against the order in this case has been dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Similarly, the SLP filed in the other case cited by the appellants has also met the same fate. Consequently, these orders have attained finality, leaving no scope for further dispute regarding their binding nature.

8. It is imperative to acknowledge the multifaceted role of a housewife as a homemaker. Her contributions extend beyond

-17measurable economic parameters, encompassing household management, child care, emotional support, and the upkeep of familial stability. These services, though often unrecognized in monetary terms, are invaluable to the functioning and well- being of a household. In assessing compensation, the court must factor in this indispensable contribution, which would otherwise necessitate considerable expenditure if outsourced. In view of the above, it is just and reasonable to determine the monthly income of the deceased Charanjit Kaur, housewife at Rs.9,000/- per month, therefore, the award requires interference by the Court." 15.

In Jasbir Singh's case (supra), the notional income of a housewife was taken as Rs.9000/-. Therefore, in the present case, with the accident occurring in 2000, and in view of inflation, the cost of living, and jurisprudential acknowledgment of the far-reaching economic contribution of homemakers, it is both just and reasonable to reassess the notional income of the deceased. 16.

The work of a housewife transcends caretaking embracing preparation of meals for the entire family; procurement of groceries and household supplies; cleaning and maintenance of the house and surroundings; financial planning and budget management; child care and education; tending to elderly dependents; coordinating repairs and homebased healthcare etc. These services, if procured in the open market, would command substantial remuneration, underscoring the integral role played by a homemaker in family stability.

17.

In light of the above legal position and having due regard to the facts and circumstances of the present case, this Court finds it appropriate to assess the notional income of the deceased-Smt. Shanti at Rs.5,000/- per month.

-1818.

The learned Tribunal has erred in not adding future prospects while calculating the compensation. Moreover, the learned Tribunal has erred in applying multiplier of 8 instead of 11.

19.

A further perusal of the award reveals that compensation awarded for loss of estate and funeral expenses is also on lower side and nothing has been awarded under the head of loss of consortium, therefore, the award requires indulgence of this Court.

CONCLUSION 20.

In view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the above referred to judgments, the present appeal is allowed. The award dated 19.09.2009 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Rewari is modified accordingly. The appellants/claimants are entitled to the enhanced amount of compensation from the respondents, as per the calculations made here-under:- Sr. No.

Heads Compensation Awarded Monthly Income Rs.5,000/- Future prospects @ 10% Rs.500/- (5000 X 10%) Deduction towards personal expenditure 1/3 Rs.1,833/- (5500 X 1/3) 4.

Total Income Rs.3,667/- (5,500-1,833) Multiplier Annual Dependency Rs.4,84,044/- (3,667 X 12 X 11) Loss of Estate Rs.15,000/- Funeral Expenses Rs.15,000/- Loss of Consortium Rs.80,000/- Total Compensation Rs.5,94,044/- Deduction Amount Awarded by the Tribunal Rs.1,40,000/- Enhanced amount Rs.4,54,044/- (5,94,044-1,40,000)

-1921.

So far as the interest part is concerned, as held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Dara Singh @ Dhara Banjara Vs. Shyam Singh Varma 2019 ACJ 3176 and R.Valli and Others VS. Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (2022) 5 Supreme Court Cases 107, the enhanced amount so calculated shall carry an interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition, till the date of realization.

22.

The respondent No.1 and 2 are directed to deposit the enhanced amount along with interest at the rate of 9% with the Tribunal within a period of two months from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment. The Tribunal is directed to disburse the same to the appellants-claimants in their bank accounts. The appellants-claimants are directed to furnish their bank account details to the Tribunal.

23.

Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (SUDEEPTI SHARMA) JUDGE 11.05.2026 Saahil/Ayub Whether speaking/non-speaking :

Yes/No Whether reportable :

Yes