Meena And Others v. Joginder And Another

[1]

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

Date of decision: 05.12.2025 Meena and others ...Appellants

Versus

Joginder and another

...Respondents

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA

Present:

Mr. Surinder Singh Duhan, Advocate for the appellants.

**** DEEPAK GUPTA, J. (ORAL) The present appeal has been preferred by the widow, minor children and aged father of Ramesh Kumar, son of Sudhan, who lost his life in a motor vehicular accident that occurred on 01.05.2023 due to the rash and negligent driving of car bearing registra1on No. HR15B-6377. 2.

The claim pe11on filed under Sec1on 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, sought compensa1on from the driver-cum-owner of the offending vehicle and its insurer. Vide award dated 12.08.2025, the learned Tribunal assessed compensa1on at ₹ 23,85,668/-, with interest @ 6% per annum, to be paid jointly and severally by the respondents. 3.

Seeking enhancement, Learned counsel for the appellants contends that the compensa1on awarded by the Tribunal is inadequate and that the Tribunal should have granted interest at a rate higher than 6% per annum.

4.

This Court has perused the award passed by the Tribunal. The income of the deceased, who was employed as a Primary Teacher earning ₹13,090/- per month, and his age of 43 years at the 1me of the accident, have not been disputed. The Tribunal has correctly added 25% towards future prospects, in accordance with the principles laid down in Naonal Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi and others, (2017) 4 RCR (Civil)

[2] 1009, which provides for addi1on of 25% in case of a deceased, who was not a permanent employee aged between 40 and 50 years. 5.

Considering that there were five dependents, the Tribunal has rightly applied a 1/4th deduc1on towards personal expenses, as mandated in Sarla Verma & others v. Delhi Transport Corporaon & another, (2009) 6 SCC 121. The mul1plier of 14 applied by the Tribunal is also strictly in consonance with the aforesaid judgment. 6.

Furthermore, the Tribunal has awarded spousal consor1um, parental consor1um and filial consor1um to the respec1ve claimants, in line with the guidelines laid down in Pranay Sethi and subsequently clarified in Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram alias Chuhru Ram and others, (2018) 18 SCC 130. Amounts under loss of estate and funeral expenses have also been duly granted, following seDled legal standards. 7.

During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the appellants was unable to point out any specific error in computa1on or any head under which the Tribunal failed to award compensa1on. Nor could he establish that the compensa1on was on the lower side in light of the applicable statutory and judicial principles. 8.

Having failed to demonstrate any error in the quantum, learned counsel for the appellants alterna1vely prayed for enhancement of the rate of interest awarded on the compensa1on amount. 9.

This Court finds no jus1fica1on or compelling circumstances to enhance the interest rate beyond 6% per annum, which the Tribunal awarded in its discre1on. The rate awarded is in consonance with prevailing judicial trends, wherein the Courts have generally awarded interest between 6% and 9%, depending on the facts and circumstances of each case. No reason has been shown to warrant devia1on from the Tribunal's discre1on.

[3] 10.

In view of the above discussion and the absence of any legal infirmity or perversity in the award, no ground for interference is made out. The appeal therefore stands dismissed.

05.12.2025 (DEEPAK GUPTA) Yogesh JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned:- Yes/No Whether reportable:- Yes/No