Punjab-Haryana High Court

National Insurance Company Ltd vs Phoola Devi & Ors on 6 November, 2025

     FAO Nos. 5374-2016 (O&M)
     and 6937-2017 (O&M)                                                        1


                        IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

                   231                                 Date of decision: 06.11.2025

                1. FAO-5374-2016 (O&M)
                National Insurance Company Limited                       ...Appellant(s)

                                                     Vs.
                Phoola Devi and others                                   ...Respondent(s)
                                                    AND
                2. FAO-6937-2017 (O&M)
                Phoola Devi and another                                  ...Appellant(s)

                                                     Vs.

                M/s. Vishwanhind Logistics Ltd. and others               ....Respondent(s)

                CORAM:         HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA

                Present:-      Mr. Assem Aggarwal, Advocate for the appellant
                               in FAO-5374-2016.

                                     ***

                NIDHI GUPTA, J.

FAO-5374-2016:

The present appeal has been filed by the Insurance Company

seeking modification of the Award dated 20.05.2016 passed by the

learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Karnal (hereinafter referred to

as "the Tribunal"); whereby Claim Petition No. 72 dated 23.11.2015 filed

by the claimants/respondents No.1 and 2 herein, under Section 166 of

the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), has

been allowed; and the claimants have been awarded compensation of

Rs.20,17,000/- alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. The 2 claimants are the

mother and minor son of the deceased Subhash Chand, who was 44

FAO Nos. 5374-2016 (O&M)

years old at the time of accident. Performa respondent No.4/widow of

the deceased Subhash Chand is found to have left the matrimonial home

almost 10 years prior to the accident; and was therefore, held not

entitled to compensation.

FAO-6937-2017

The present appeal has been filed by the claimants seeking

enhancement of compensation of Rs.20,17,000/- granted by the learned

MACT, Karnal vide Award dated 20.05.2016 passed in MACP No. 554

dated 23.11.2015 filed under Section 166 of the Act. The 2 claimants are

the mother and minor son of the deceased Subhash Chand, who was 44

years old at the time of accident.

CM-22492-CII-2017 in FAO-6937-2017:

Prayer in this application filed by the applicants/claimants

under Section 5 of the Limitation Act read with Section 151 of CPC is for

condonation of delay of 237 days in filing the appeal.

2. For the reasons cited in the application, which is duly

supported by an affidavit of the applicant/appellant No.1, the same is

allowed; and the delay of 237 days in filing the appeal is condoned.

FAO Nos.5374-2016 & 6937-2017

Both the above said appeals are being disposed of by this

common order as both arise out of the same impugned Award dated

20.05.2016; both appeals are between same parties; and in respect of the

same accident dated 10.11.2013; and the facts and issues involved in both

DIVYANSHI the cases are identical.

FAO Nos. 5374-2016 (O&M)

2. For the sake of facility, facts are being drawn from FAO-5374-

2016 filed by the Insurance Company.

3. Brief facts of the case are that the learned Tribunal upon

appraisal of the pleadings, and the oral and documentary evidence adduced

by the parties, concluded that deceased-Subhash Chand had died due to

the injuries suffered by him in a motor vehicular accident that took place on

10.11.2013 due to the rash and negligent driving of a Tralla bearing

registration No. HR-38-Q-5177 (hereinafter referred to as 'the offending

vehicle'), which was owned by respondent No.1; and insured by respondent

No.2/appellant herein. The above said compensation was granted by the

learned Tribunal alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the date of

institution of the claim petition till realization. The Insurance Company was

held liable to pay the above said compensation.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant/Insurance Company submits

that the impugned Award deserves to be modified as learned Tribunal has

take income of the deceased on higher side as Rs.12,000/-p.m. It is

submitted that it was pleaded by the claimants before the Tribunal that the

deceased was a Driver by profession and was earning Rs.15,000/- p.m.

However, no proof of either the said profession, or income was produced by

the claimants. Learned counsel contends that in such circumstances,

income of the deceased could, at best, have been taken as that of a skilled

worker as Rs.5,861/- p.m. as per Minimum Wage Notification dated

13.08.2013 w.e.f. 01.07.2013 issued by State of Haryana, a copy of which is

DIVYANSHI handed over in Court today. However, the learned Tribunal, in a totally

FAO Nos. 5374-2016 (O&M)

incorrect manner, has merely stated that "It is a matter of common

experience that a person holding licence to drive heavy vehicle can easily

earn Rs.12,000/- per month." Learned counsel contends that mere

'common experience' can constitute no ground for determining income of

the deceased as Rs.12,000/- p.m.

5. It is further submitted that learned Tribunal has made addition

of 30% towards future prospects, whereas the same ought to have been

25%. Further, an exorbitant amount of Rs.1 lac each has been awarded to

both the claimants for loss of love and affection; whereas the same ought

to have been Rs.48,000/- p.m. each. It is accordingly prayed that the

impugned Award be modified in the above manner.

6. No other argument is made on behalf of ld. counsel for the

appellant. I have heard ld. counsel and perused the case file in great detail.

7. In the cross-appeal No. 6937 of 2017 filed by the claimants,

none has put in appearance since the inception of the appeal from the year

2017. Even in the present appeal filed by the Insurance Company, none has

appeared on behalf of the claimants despite service. As such, matter is

being heard and decided in the absence of learned counsel for the

claimants.

8. Perusal of the appeal filed by the claimants shows that

enhancement of compensation is sought on the ground that "Learned

MACT has not granted any compensation for loss of estate; loss of

expectancy of life of the deceased....; interest of 12% is payable on the

DIVYANSHI enhanced compensation...." Learned MACT has not granted any

FAO Nos. 5374-2016 (O&M)

compensation for litigation expenses; whereas appellants were entitled for

Rs.25,000/- towards cost of litigation.......".

9. Although, it has been very persuasively argued on behalf of the

Insurance Company that income of the deceased has been taken on the

higher side however, I find no merit in the said argument. Date of accident

is 10.11.2013. As such, income/salary of a heavy vehicle Driver in the year

2013 would be about Rs.12,000/- p.m. In support of their claim, claimants

had produced a copy of Driving Licence of the deceased as Mark-A, as per

which, deceased was authorized to drive PSVBUS. It is even proved on

record that deceased had died while driving Truck bearing registration No.

HP-12-D-2354. As such, I find no error in the income as assessed by the

Tribunal.

10. Further, the age of the deceased was proved to be about 44

years old from his Driving Licence Mark-A in which his date of birth is

mentioned as 25.06.1969. As such, on the date of accident i.e. 10.11.2013,

deceased was about 44 years of age. Therefore, as per judgment passed by

Hon'ble Supreme Court in "Sarla Verma Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation"

(2009) AIR (SC) 3104 Law Finder Doc ID # 188882, future prospects of 25%

were to be added; and not @ 30% as incorrectly added by the Tribunal.

Multiplier of 14 has been correctly applied. As there were two

claimants/dependents, deduction of 1/3rd has also been correctly made.

Further, learned Tribunal has granted Rs.1 lac each to both the claimants

towards loss of love and affection. The said amount is on the higher side as,

DIVYANSHI as per the structured formula laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in

FAO Nos. 5374-2016 (O&M)

"National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi and others",

Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 25590 of 2014, Rs.40,000/- + 10% increase

every three years, has to be granted. I also find merit in the pleading of the

claimants to the effect that the learned Tribunal ought to have awarded

compensation under loss of estate as well.

11. In view of the above, FAO-5374-2016 filed by the Insurance

Company is partly allowed; and compensation awarded to the claimants is

modified as follows:-

Sr.No. Details Before the Tribunal Revised compensation

1. Income Monthly: Rs.12,000/- Monthly: Rs.12,000/-

2. Future prospects @ 30% i.e. Rs.16,000/- @ 25% i.e. Rs.15,000/-

                                                     (12,000+4,000)         (12,000+3,000)
                3.             Deduction of 1/3rd Rs.10,667 x 12            Rs.10,000 x 12 =
                                                  =Rs.1,28,004              Rs.1,20,000/-
                4.             Multiplier of 14      1,28,004 x 14 =        Rs.1,20,000 x 14 =
                                                     Rs.17,92,056/-         Rs.16,80,000/-
                5.             Loss of love and      Rs.1 lac each to       Rs.48,000/- each to
                               affection             claimants No.1 and 2   claimants No. 1 and 2
                6.             Funeral expenses      Rs.25,000/-            Rs.18,000/-
                7.             Loss of Estate        Nil                    Rs.18,000/-
                7.             Total                 Rs.20,17,056/- i.e.    Rs.18,12,000/-
                                                     Rs.20,17,000/-
                8.             Deducted              Rs.20,17,000-Rs.18,12,000 =    Rs.2,05,000/-
                               compensation
                9.             Interest              9% per annum           9% per annum