Swarnjeet Kaur And Another vs Harjinder Kumar And Others
2026 Latest Caselaw 3870 P&H

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.

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

establish that the deceased was a skilled worker, his income has rightly been

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
2026.04.29 20:14                     Whether reportable               Yes/No