[Cites 6, Cited by 0]
Punjab-Haryana High Court
Noorbano Begam And Others vs Sokin And Others on 15 December, 2025
FAO-1108-2024 Page 1 of 5
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
117
Date of decision: 15.12.2025
FAO-1108-2024(O&M)
Noorbano Begam & Others
...Appellant(s)
Vs.
Sokin & Others
...Respondent(s)
***
CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA
Present:- Mr. Sandeep Yadav, Advocate for
Mr. Rajesh Goyal, Advocate
for the appellants.
Mr. Diwan S. Adlakha, Advocate
for respondent No.3.
***
NIDHI GUPTA, J.
CM-4471-CII-2024
This is an application under Section 5 of Limitation Act for
condonation of delay of 101 days in filing the appeal.
After going through the contents of the application, which is
supported by affidavit of appellant No.1, the same is allowed subject to all
just exceptions and delay of 101 days in filing the present appeal is condoned.
FAO-1108-2024
Present appeal has been filed by claimants seeking
enhancement of compensation of Rs.18,72,265/- awarded by the Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal, Panipat (hereinafter 'the learned Tribunal') vide
Award dated 29.07.2023 passed in MACT Petition No.91 dated 26.10.2020
filed under Sections 166 and 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act (hereinafter
"the Act"). The 4 claimants are the 33-year-old widow; three minor children
aged 9, 5 and 3 years respectively, of deceased Samid Ali, who was 38 years
old at the time of accident,
2. Brief facts of the case are that the ld. Tribunal on the basis of
pleadings and oral & documentary evidence adduced by the parties,
concluded that deceased Samid Ali had died due to the injuries suffered by
him in a motor vehicular accident that took place on 11.09.2020 due to the
rash and negligent driving of TATA Canter bearing registration No.HR-56A-
8299 (hereinafter referred to as "the offending vehicle") being driven by
respondent No.1, owned by respondent No.2 and insured by respondent
No.3. The aforesaid compensation has been awarded along with interest @
7.5% per annum. The respondents were held jointly and severally liable for
payment of compensation amount.
3. The only ground on which learned counsel for the appellants
seeks enhancement of compensation is that consortium has been awarded
only to claimant No.1/widow of the deceased; and nothing has been
awarded to the claimants No.2 to 4/minor children of the deceased by way
of consortium. It is accordingly prayed that the impugned Award be
enhanced in the above terms.
4. Notice of motion.
5. On the asking of the Court, Mr. Diwan S. Adlakha, Advocate
accepts notice on behalf of respondent No.3-Insurance Company. Learned
counsel for the respondent No.3 opposes the submissions advanced on
behalf of the appellants and submits that the impugned Award suffers from
no error; and the present appeal accordingly deserves to be dismissed.
6. No other argument is made on behalf of the parties. I have
heard learned counsel and perused the case file in detail. I find merit in the
submission advanced on behalf of the appellants.
7. It was the pleaded case of the appellants before the learned
Tribunal that deceased was 38 years old and was working in a Private Factory
as skilled worker and earning Rs.18,000/- per month. However, as the
appellants failed to adduce any cogent or documentary proof of said
avocation or income of the deceased, the Tribunal had assessed notional
income of the deceased as Rs.9,458/- per month on the basis of the relevant
Minimum Wage Notification issued by the State of Haryana. I find no error in
the same.
8. Further, age of the deceased was proved to be 38 years old at
the time of accident on the basis of his Aadhaar Card (Ex.P3) wherein his date
of birth is mentioned as 01.01.1982. Accordingly, learned Tribunal had
correctly made an addition of 40% towards future prospects; and correctly
applied multiplier of 15. Learned Tribunal had further awarded Rs.48,400/-
to claimant No.1/widow as consortium; and Rs.18,150/- each towards
funeral expenses and loss of estate.
9. As per judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in "National
Insurance Company Ltd. VS. Pranay Sethi & Others" Law Finder Doc ID #
918174; "Sarla Verma Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation" (2009) AIR (SC) 3104
Law Finder Doc ID # 188882; Rani @ Raj Kumari v. Kamlakat Gupta, (SC) :
Law Finder Doc ID # 2818646; and Samyak Jain v. Kesrilal Mehta, (SC) : Law
Finder Doc ID # 2783911; and judgments of this Court in Smt. Mukesh v.
Ramdev, (Punjab And Haryana) : Law Finder Doc ID # 2718585; and Sunita
v. Shoib Khan, (Punjab And Haryana) : Law Finder Doc ID # 2687802, amount
of Rs.48,400/- each i.e. total of Rs.96,800/- is payable to the claimants No.2
and 4 by way of consortium, as claimant No.3/minor daughter has since
expired. Thus, compensation payable to the appellants is reassessed as
under:-
Head Amounts awarded by the Re-assessed
learned Tribunal compensation
Monthly income Rs.9,458/- Rs.9,458/-
Annual income Rs.1,13,496/- Rs.1,13,496/-
Deduction of 1/4th Rs.1,13,496/- -
Rs.1,13,496/- -
Rs.28,374/- = Rs.85,122/-
Rs.28,374/- =
Rs.85,122/-
Addition of 40% Rs.34,049/- per annum Rs.34,049/- per annum
Multiplier of 15 Rs.34,049/- x 15 = Rs.34,049/- x 15 =
Rs.5,10,735/- Rs.5,10,735/-
Loss of dependency Rs.12,76,830/- + Rs.12,76,830/- +
Rs.5,10,735/- = Rs.5,10,735/- =
Rs.17,87,565/- Rs.17,87,565/-
Loss of consortium Rs.48,400/- Rs.48,400/-
to claimant
No.1/widow
Loss of consortium Nil Rs.48,400/- each i.e.
to claimants No.2 Rs.96,800/-
and 4/minor
children
Loss of estate Rs.18,150/- Rs.18,150/-
Funeral expenses Rs.18,150/- Rs.18,150/-
Total Rs.18,72,265/- Rs.19,69,065/-
10. Present appeal stands allowed in above terms.
11. Pending application(s) if any also stand(s) disposed of.
15.12.2025 (Nidhi Gupta)
Sunena Judge
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
Whether reportable: Yes/No
