Santosh And Others v. Ajay Kumar And Others
......Appellants Vs.
......Respondents
Reserved on: 13.05.2026
Pronounced on: 15.05.2026 Uploaded on : 19.05.2026
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA
Present:
Mr. Arvind Bansal, Advocate for the appellants.
Mr. Vinod Gupta, Advocate for respondent No.3-Insurance Company.
**** SUDEEPTI SHARMA J.
1.
The present appeal has been preferred against the award dated 07.01.2012 passed in the claim petition filed under Section 166 f the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (in short '1988 Act'), by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kaithal
!"
#$% &'
( & ) * + , , * - " .
-
'
/ .
0
! . "
/ . "
"
20!3
4. "
/ / . " .
. .
.
3/
" "
5 6 7 4 Sarla Verma Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another !
"#$%&'&(#%)*+&+, " " / 8!
!
"# $
%
& #$
$ !
- $ ' ()*+,
-+$'()*.,
./$
' ()*0,
! !
$
1 $
$ 023
!
$
$
$
(,
"
4$ $
"
1 $ $ $ $
$
$ 023
!
023
% $
. $
' $ !
'
" '
* * * * * * 42.
# (., (
5$ "#
# ,$
)6( )0-2 -)-0 ,$ $ 7')8 -/+2 $7')/+)+0 $7')0+/.2
$7')..).0 $ 7')+./02
$ $
$7'))0)00 $7'90//2 $7'8 /)/0 7'0//82
: 6 7 4 National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors. / ""0,
" 7 55 50!* 5+ &) * $++ "
8!
* ;
/ < =
1 >
= 4 * .
= ; / .
< "
= ? @
8"
A= !
.
< .
/ A 8!
952. : conventional heads $ !
;
<
1 ; -0$222 !
$; )$22$222 ; )$22$222 !
;
= $
$
$
> " $
& : &
!$ " $
"
$ !
$
"
"
& $
" $ " ! 1 $ $ $ !
; )0$222$ ; .2$222 ; )0$222
? ' & '
" & )23
@ @ @ @ @ 59.3 $ 023
$
.2 $
+23$
/ .202 1 02/2 $ )03
:
!
59.4 1 ' (,
!
$ .23
.2 : -03
.202 )23 02/2
!
59.5 4
$ !
$
+2+-
A
59.6.
A C
.-
59.7
59.8 ; $ $ $ !
; )0$222$ ; .2$222 ; )0$222
0
)23 + 6 7 4 *2'* &3&%*4
3+#%*35&('$*36 7'7)&89+ *3#*'*47*+:#:%#*' ):&%+ 0 0 -, *%4*9&%'* +#$%* %*3*6 &):7 #$%* " /
8!
E21 :# ? # F
<
1
$ G G
G
G$ G
G$ G
G
$ $ $ $ $
$
$ !
-) ) Spousal consortium
'
G
$ $ $ $
G
-) - Parental consortium
$ G
$
!
$ $ $
$
G
-) + Filial consortium
: "
# $ $
#
7 ' H !
7
$
$
7A :
$
1
$ $
F
: : % #
% $
G G
F
< 1 $
$
;.2$222
$ A perusal of the impugned award shows that the age of the deceased was 42 years at the time of accident as depicted from PMR (Ex.P-4), therefore, learned Tribunal has rightly assessed the age of deceased as 42 years and rightly applied multiplier of 14 as per settled law. 10.
A further perusal of the award reveals that deceased-Mukesh Kumar was stated to be an agriculturist and also doing business of property dealing, earning Rs.12,000/- per month. However, the learned Tribunal assessed the notional income of the deceased as Rs.3500/- per month which in considered opinion of this Court is on lower side and not in accordance with minimum wage notification. Considering the facts of the case and minimum wages applicable to an un-skilled labourer, this Court deems it fit to reassess the income of the deceased as Rs.4,212/-.
* " / / . "
"
.
"
<
* " / " .
" 1;
, * " / < "
" - 4
0 3/
" " ". 6 7 4 / A "
" 07.01.2012
. !
8!
Sr.
No.
Heads Compensation Awarded &.3
,
!
, @ #, %
0 !, % ,
;
"
<
5 ! ,5:B
3 0$
! ,5:!
5 &
*;
. 550:5+ !0$
B ,B
:
C?
!
+ @ ?<
!
$ C4 1 80<
78 <
@ 8 <
, !
()*4('$&3+*)7(3 + 0!-/"0< &8#5)7(3 **" .
+ .1<
, 3:*35&8*'(#3) + .=.=/"0< 0!-/"0.1
7 .6
7 4 Dara Singh @ Dhara Banjara Vs. Shyam Singh Varma !-/" R.Valli and Others VS. Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (2022) 5 Supreme Court Cases 107 = !
#$%
D
The respondent No.3-Insurance Company is 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 appellantsclaimants in their bank accounts. The appellants-claimants are directed to furnish their bank account details to the Tribunal.
5 . 1 1 "
:
*
E '
! '
8 2 E 8