Punjab-Haryana High Court
Swarnjeet Kaur And Another vs Harjinder Kumar And Others on 28 April, 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
130 FAO-391-2026
Date of decision :28.04.2026
SWARNJEET KAUR AND ANOTHER APPELLANTS
VERSUS
HARJINDER KUMAR AND OTHERS ...RESPONDENTS
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PARMOD GOYAL
Present: Mrs. Gurnam Kaur Turka, Advocate
for the appellants.
****
PARMOD GOYAL, J. (ORAL)
1. The present appeal has been preferred by the appellants-claimants being dissatisfied by the impugned award dated 08.10.2025 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Patiala, (hereinafter referred to as "Tribunal") vide which amount of Rs.14,95,000/- along with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum was awarded to the appellants - claimants on account of death of their son Harjinder Singh in motor vehicle accident dated 26.08.2019.
2. It is the case of the appellants-claimants that on 26.08.2019 deceased died on account of rash and negligent driving by respondent No. 1, while driving car bearing registration No. PB-11-CH-5213. Admittedly, Issue No. 1 regarding negligence on the part of respondent No. 1 was decided in favour of the appellants-claimants and the same has not been challenged.
3. Since the factum of the accident is not in dispute, the facts as regards to manner of accident, as recorded in the impugned award passed by the Tribunal are not being adverted herein for sake of brevity. MANOJ KUMAR 2026.04.29 20:14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-391-2026 -2-
4. The appellants-claimants are aggrieved by the quantum of compensation awarded to the appellants - claimants under various heads. As per the appellants-claimants, the deceased was 26 years old at the time of the accident and was earning Rs.30,000/- per month. In order to prove the vocation and income of the deceased, appellant-claimant No. 2, father of the deceased appeared as CW-1 and reiterated the claim regarding income of the deceased and loss of dependency. However, except for the oral assertions made by CW-1 Pritam Singh, no other evidence was led by the appellants-claimants to establish the vocation and the income of the deceased. There is no corroborative material, either documentary or oral evidence to conclude that the deceased was an electrician and earning Rs.30,000/- per month. Therefore, in absence of any cogent material to establish the vocation and income of the deceased, the learned Tribunal was left with no option but to assess the income of the deceased on the basis of minimum wages payable to an unskilled worker prevalent at the time of the accident.
5. The onus to prove the income of the deceased lies upon the appellants-claimants. It is for them to establish that the deceased was engaged in a particular vocation and was earning the amount as pleaded. In the absence of any supporting evidence, mere self-serving statement made by the appellants- claimants cannot be accepted to determine the income of the deceased. At best, it can be inferred that the deceased was a young, able-bodied man with a bright future ahead.
6. At this stage, learned counsel for the appellants-claimants has argued that the income of the deceased ought to have been assessed at par with that of a skilled worker. However, in the absence of any material on record to MANOJ KUMAR 2026.04.29 20:14 establish that the deceased was a skilled worker, his income has rightly been I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-391-2026 -3- assessed on the basis of minimum wages payable to unskilled worker. The determination as to whether the deceased was skilled or unskilled is entirely dependent upon evidence. In the absence of any proof regarding possession of any specific skills, the deceased has to be treated as an unskilled worker, as has been done by the learned Tribunal.
7. I find no error in the approach adopted by the learned Tribunal in assessing the income of the deceased at ₹9,700/- per month, based on the minimum wages payable to an unskilled worker. The learned Tribunal has correctly taken the age of the deceased as 26 years, as pleaded by the appellants- claimants, and has accordingly granted an addition of 40% towards future prospects, applied a multiplier of '17', and deducted 50% towards personal expenses, keeping in view that the deceased was unmarried and survived by parents. Further, considering that the accident occurred on 26.08.2019 the learned Tribunal has rightly awarded consortium under the head filial consortium to the parents of the deceased to the extent of ₹80,000/- (₹40,000/- each to both the claimants). Amount of ₹15,000/- each has been awarded towards loss of estate and funeral expenses.
8. The compensation so awarded by the learned Tribunal is in accordance with law in the facts and circumstances of the case. No interference with the award passed by the learned Tribunal is warranted.
9. Accordingly, the present appeal stands dismissed.
10. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand(s) disposed of.
28.04.2026 (PARMOD GOYAL)
manoj JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes
MANOJ KUMAR
2026.04.29 20:14 Whether reportable Yes/No
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document