[Cites 10, Cited by 0]
Punjab-Haryana High Court
Jagwanti And Anr vs Shamsher And Ors on 13 February, 2026
FAO-4676-2018 (O&M) 1
Sr. No.210
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
FAO-4676-2018 (O&M)
Date of decision: 13th February 2026
JAGWANTI AND ANOTHER ........Appellants
versus
SHAMSHER AND OTHERS .......Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE HARPREET KAUR JEEWAN
Present: Mr. R.K. Chaudhary, Advocate for
Mr. Sukhdeep Parmar, Advocate
for the appellants.
None for respondent No.3-Insurance Company.
HARPREET KAUR JEEWAN, J. (ORAL)
1. By way of filing the present appeal, the appellants are seeking
enhancement of compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal, Panipat, by assailing the correctness of the Award dated
15.03.2018, regarding the death of their son-Anil Kumar.
2. Relevant facts, in brief, are that on 05.08.2016, appellant-Ajay
along with his son-Anil, was going from Israna to Village Mandi by car. At
about 1:15 PM, when the reached Mandi, a car make Captiva bearing
Registration No.DL-9-CT-3297, which was being driven by respondent No.1
at a high speed, struck with the car of the appellants, as a result of which,
their car got imbalanced and struck in the tree. Resultantly, the occupants of
the car sustained injuries. Respondent No.1 fled away from the spot. FIR
No.182 dated 05.08.2016, was registered under Sections 279, 337, 338 and
304-A IPC, at Police Station Israna.
1 of 6
3. The claimants, being parents of deceased-Anil, filed a claim
petition, which was contested by the driver and owner of the vehicle as well
as by the Insurance Company. The Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.7,35,000/-
as compensation in respect to the death of their son-Anil Kumar, as per the
following calculations:-
1. Age of deceased 19 years
2. Student of 10+2
3. Notional income Rs.40,000/- per annum
5. Compensation Rs.40,000/- X 18 =
Rs.7,20,000/-
6. Funeral expenses Rs.15,000/-
Total Rs.7,20,000/- + Rs.15,000/- =
Rs.7,35,000/-
4. Learned counsel for the appellants contends that the
compensation has not been rightly awarded, as such, the same needs to be
re-worked.
5. Despite notice, none appeared on behalf of respondent No.3-
Insurance Company.
6. I have heard learned counsel for the appellants and perused the
paper book.
7. The Tribunal has considered the notional income of the
deceased as Rs.40,000/- per annum, which is not the correct approach. In
"Kajal v. Jagdish Chand and others"; (2020) 4 SCC 413, the Hon'ble Apex
Court discarded the method of treating notional income of the minor victim
(12 years in that case) and considered the minimum wages payable to a
skilled worker and worked out the compensation. In "Baby Sakshi Greola
vs. Manzoor Ahmad Simon and Another; 2025 (1) RCR (Civil) 238, the
2 of 6
Hon'ble Apex Court held that in the case of a minor victim, taking notional
income is not a correct approach. The minimum wages payable to a skilled
worker has to be taken into consideration because that would be the
minimum amount which a victim would have earned on becoming a major.
8. The decision in Baby Sakshi Greola's case (supra) has been
followed by Hon'ble Apex Court in "Karuna Parmar vs. Prakash Sinha
and Others"; 2025 INSC 1244 while calculating the compensation of a
deceased minor child. In the said case, the parents got injured but minor
daughter aged 6 years died in a motor-vehicle accident. The Tribunal
awarded compensation by calculating her prospective annual income. The
Hon'ble Apex Court held that taking notional income is not the correct
approach. Instead, the minimum wages payable to a skilled man in the
concerned State has to be taken into consideration because that would be the
minimum amount, which she would have earned on becoming a major. The
following observations were made by the Hon'ble Apex Court : -
"Deceased Child
14. Coming to the case of the deceased child, we are not inclined to
accept the reasoning of the Tribunal on the yearly income. Recently, in
Baby Sakshi Greola v. Manzoor ahmad Simon and another 2024 SCC
Online SC 3692, J. B.R. Gavai, writing the bench, has elaborated that :
"29. This Court in the case of Kajal (supra) has held that taking
notional income is not the correct approach. Instead, the minimum
wages payable to a skilled workman in the concerned State has to
be taken into consideration because, that would be the minimum
amount which she would have earned on becoming a major; In
this case, the minimum wage payable to a skilled workman in the
3 of 6
State of Delhi at the time of the accident, i.e., 2nd June 2009, was
Rs. 4,358/- per month."
(Emphasis supplied)
15. For this purpose, we advert to the notification under the Minimum
Wages Act, 1948, for a skilled worker in 2014 wherein Rs. 223/- per day
has been fixed. The monthly income of the deceased comes to Rs.6,690/-,
and consequently, the yearly income of the deceased has to be considered
as Rs.80,280/-. The compensation payable, therefore, is as follows :
Final Compensation of Deceased Avika Parmar
Compensation Amount Awarded In Accordance with
Heads
Monthly Income 223 x 30 = Rs.6,690/- Baby Sakshi Greola v.
Manzoor Ahmad
Simon and another,
(2022) SCC Online
SC 3692
Yearly Income 6,6,90 x 12 =
Rs.80,280/-
Future Prospects 80,280 x 40% =
(40%) Rs.1,12,392/-
Deduction (1/2) 1,12,392/2 =
Rs.56,196/-
Multiplier (18) 56,196 x 18 = National Insurance
Rs.10,11,528 Co. Ltd. V. Pranay
Sethi 92017) 16 SCC
680 para 42 & 59
Loss of Estate Rs.18,150/-
Loss of Funeral Rs.18,150/-
Expenses
Loss of 48,400 x 2 =
Consortium Rs.96,800/-
Total Rs.11,44,628/-"
9. In the present case, the age of the deceased is 19 years and this
fact has not been disputed. The accident took place on 05.08.2016. As per
Notification No.I.R.-2/2016/40727-883 dated 21.10.2016, minimum wages
for a skilled workman were Rs.9,809.66/- per month (rounded off as
Rs.9,810/- per month), as per which, the monthly income of the deceased
4 of 6
comes out to Rs.9,810/- and consequently, the annual income of the
deceased has to be considered as Rs.1,17,720/-.
10. The compensation payable, therefore, is re-worked as under:-
Compensation Heads Amount Awarded
Monthly Income - Rs.9810/-
Yearly Income - 9810 X 12 = Rs.1,17,720/-
Future Prospects - 1,17,720 + 40% = Rs.1,64,808/-
Deduction (1/2) - 1,64,808 X ½ = Rs.82,404/-
Multiplier (18) - 82,404 X 18 = Rs.14,83,272/-
Loss of dependency - Rs.14,83,272/-
Loss of Estate - Rs.18,000/-
Loss of filial consortium - 48,000 x 2 = Rs.96,000/-
Funeral expenses - Rs.18,000/-
Total Compensation - Rs.16,15,272/-
Interest @ 7.5% per Annum on enhanced amount
11. The amount in excess of the amount awarded by the Tribunal
shall attract interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the claim
petition till the realization of the entire amount. However, the claimants-
appellants shall not be entitled to any interest for the period of delay in filing
the main appeal.
12. In view of the decision by the Hon'ble Apex Court in
"Parminder Singh vs. Honey Goyal and Others; 2025 INSC 361, after
calculation of the enhanced amount, the same shall be transferred by
respondent No.3-Insurance Company in the Bank Accounts of the claimants-
appellants within a period of 06 weeks from today. The particulars of the
bank account(s) along with the requisite documents in support thereof, shall
be furnished by the claimant-appellants to respondent No.3-Insurance
5 of 6
Company within a period of two weeks from today and needful shall be
done by respondent No.3-Insurance Company after verification thereof,
within a period of four weeks thereafter, along with up-to-date interest. The
compliance shall be reported by the Bank to the Tribunal concerned.
13. In view of the above discussion, the instant appeal is partly
allowed and the Award passed by the Tribunal is modified accordingly.
14. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall stand
disposed of.
(HARPREET KAUR JEEWAN)
JUDGE
13th February 2026
simran
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
6 of 6
