Punjab-Haryana High Court
Harpreet Kaur And Others vs Harjinder Kumar And Others on 28 April, 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
126 FAO-259-2026
Date of decision :28.04.2026
HARPREET KAUR AND OTHERS ... 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 ₹22,68,000/- along with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum was awarded in favour of the appellants-claimants on account of death of deceased Dharminder 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 MANOJ KUMAR 2026.04.29 20:14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-259-2026 -2- Tribunal are not being adverted herein for sake of brevity.
4. The appellants-claimants are primarily aggrieved by the quantum of compensation awarded to the appellants-claimants under various heads. As per the appellants-claimants, the deceased was 30 years old at the time of accident and was running a small factory engaged in manufacturing iron boxes, almirah, etc., at Village Chaswal, Nabha Road, and was earning ₹30,000/- per month. In order to prove the vocation and income of the deceased, appellant- claimant No. 1, the wife of the deceased, appeared as PW-1 and reiterated the claim regarding income of the deceased and loss of dependency. However, except for the oral assertions made by PW-1 Harpreet Kaur, no other evidence was led by the appellants-claimants to establish either the vocation or the income of the deceased. There is no corroborative material, either documentary or oral evidence to conclude that the deceased was skilled person 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 MANOJ KUMAR 2026.04.29 20:14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-259-2026 -3- 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 establish that the deceased was a skilled worker, his income has rightly been assessed on the basis of minimum wages payable to an unskilled worker. The determination as to whether the deceased was skilled or unskilled is entirely dependent upon evidence on record. 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 ₹10,185/- per month, based on the minimum wages payable to an unskilled worker. The learned Tribunal has correctly taken the age of the deceased as 30 years, as pleaded by the appellants- claimants, and has accordingly granted an addition of 40% towards future prospects, applied multiplier of 17, and deducted 1/4th towards personal expenses, keeping in view that the deceased was survived by four dependants i.e. wife, two children and mother. Further, considering that the fact that accident occurred on 26.08.2019, the learned Tribunal has rightly awarded consortium to the wife, children, and mother of the deceased to the extent of ₹1,60,000/- (₹40,000/- each to all four claimants). An amount of ₹15,000/- has been awarded towards loss of estate and ₹15,000/- towards funeral expenses.
8. The compensation so awarded is, therefore, in accordance with law and constitutes just and reasonable compensation in the facts and circumstances of the present case. No interference in appeal is warranted. Accordingly, the present appeal stands dismissed.
MANOJ KUMAR 2026.04.29 20:14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-259-2026 -4-
9. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand(s) disposed of accordingly.
28.04.2026 (PARMOD GOYAL)
manoj JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes
Whether reportable Yes/No
MANOJ KUMAR
2026.04.29 20:14
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document