Harpreet Kaur And Others vs Harjinder Kumar And Others
2026 Latest Caselaw 3871 P&H

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

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

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.

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