[Cites 5, Cited by 0]
Punjab-Haryana High Court
Sheela And Anr vs Dimple Kumar And Ors on 11 March, 2026
(Pronouncement)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
FAO No. 3621 of 2023 (O&M)
Reserved On: 25.02.2026
Pronounced On: 11.03.2026
Sheela and another
...Appellants
Versus
Dimple Kumar and others
...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJA
Argued By:
By Mr. Jaspreet Singh, Advocate for
Mr. Vishal Sharda, Advocate
for the appellants-claimants.
claimants.
Mr. R.C. Kapoor, Advocate
for respondent No. 3-Insurance
Insurance Company.
****
HARKESH MANUJA, J.
By way of present appeal, challenge has been laid to
an award dated 24.04.2023 passed by the learned Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal, Kurukshetra (for brevity, "the
Tribunal"), whereby an amount of Rs. 19,35,400/
Tribunal"), 19,35,400/- was awarded
as compensation to the appellants/claimants along with interest
@ 9% per annum from the date of filing of pet
petition till its
realization on account of death of Deepak in a motor vehicular
accident, that occurred on 09.09.2021.
[2] Since
ince the sole issue for determination in the present
appeal is confined to the quantum of compensation
compensation, a detailed
1 of 8
FAO No. 3621 of 2023 (O&M) -2-
narration of the facts of the case is omitted herein for the sake of
brevity.
ARGUMENTS:
ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANTS-CLAIMANTS
[3] Learned counsel for the appellants/claimants
assailed the impugned award, contending that the deceased was
truck driver and was earning approximately ₹30,000/- per month;
however, the learned Tribunal erred in assessing his monthly
income at ₹12,000/- on the basis of minimum wages notified by
the Labour Department, Government of Haryana. It was
principally argued that the learned Tribunal ought to have relied
upon the DC rates notified by the District Commissioner for
determining the income of the deceased, the same being more
reflective of the prevailing wages. Learned counsel further
contended that the compensation awarded under the
conventional heads, as well as the rate of interest granted, was
also on the lower side, thus prayed for enhancement.
ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT No.3/INSURANCE
COMPANY
[4] Per contra, learned counsel representing respondent
No.3/Insurance Company neither refuted the factum of accident
nor even the negligence of the offending vehicle, however,
submitted that in the facts of the present case, the compensation
assessed by the learned Tribunal called for no interference.
2 of 8
FAO No. 3621 of 2023 (O&M) -3-
DISCUSSION AND REASONING
[5] I have heard learned counsels for the parties and
perused the paper-book of the case. I find force in the arguments
advanced by learned counsel for the appellants.
QUESTION AS TO THE INCOME OF THE DECEASED
[6] In the present case, Smt. Sheela, mother of the
deceased, while appearing as PW-1, deposed that the deceased
was working as a truck driver and earning ₹30,000 per month;
however, no cogent evidence was led in support thereof. The
learned Tribunal considered copy of 'C' certificate of NCC (Ex.P-
12), certificate of training in handling of riffle issued by Home
Guards Haryana (Ex. P13) , training certificates of Gardener and
Nursey Raising and Dairy Farming issued by Ch. Charan Singh
Haryana Agriculture University, Krishi Vigyan Kendra, Kaithal
(Ex.P-14 & Ex.P-15), employment certificate (Ex.P16), Bachelor
of Arts certificate (Ex.P-17) , experience certificate issued by
Shiv Tralla Company showing employment as a driver from
05.05.2018 to 04.05.2019 (Ex.P18), and electrician certificate
issued by the National Council for Vocational Training (Ex. P-19),
which collectively established that the deceased was a skilled
and trained person. The Tribunal also noted that the minimum
wages w.e.f. 01.07.2021 for skilled labour were ₹11,915.86 per
month and for a heavy vehicle driver, it were ₹12,511.65 per
month, and that Ex.P-18 reflected prior earnings of ₹10,000 per
3 of 8
FAO No. 3621 of 2023 (O&M) -4-
month. On that basis, the income was assessed at ₹12,000 per
month.
[6.1] Learned counsel for the appellants/claimants while
relying upon the judgment of United India Insurance Company
Ltd. v. Rajnesh Devi and others passed in FAO No. 4272 of
2016(O&M), contended that the Deputy Commissioner (DC)
rates furnish a more realistic basis for assessing the income of
the deceased and ought to have been preferred over the
minimum wages. In the humble opinion of this Court, the
learned Tribunal while relying upon the aforesaid documentary
evidence rightly concluded that the deceased was a skilled
worker, however, it erred in assessing the income of the
deceased based upon minimum wages.
[6.2] It is well settled that minimum wages serve only as a
guiding benchmark and not an absolute standard for
determining income. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of
"Jakir Hussein v. Sabir and others", reported as 2015(2)
R.C.R (Civil)141 has held that,
"the wage rate as per the minimum wage notification is
only a yardstick and not an absolute factor to be taken to
determine the compensation under the future loss of
income. Minimum wage, as per the State government
notification alone may at times fail to meet the
requirements that are needed to maintain the basic quality
of life since it is not inclusive of factors of cost of living
index."
4 of 8
FAO No. 3621 of 2023 (O&M) -5-
[6.3] In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court is of
the opinion that in the facts and circumstances of present case,
DC rates would be a more realistic criterion rather than minimum
wages to assess the income of the deceased. Since the
deceased was a self-employed truck driver residing in Kaithal,
accordingly the DC rates for District Kaithal for the year 2021-22
indicate a monthly income of ₹19,947/-. Furthermore,
considering his skills, training and experience in various fields,
and likelihood of better earning prospects as established from
the aforementioned documents produced on record before the
learned Tribunal, the monthly income of the deceased is
reasonably assessed at ₹24,000/-.
QUESTION OF FUTURE PROSPECTS, MULTIPLIER AND
DEDUCTION TOWARDS PERSONAL EXPENSES
[7] In the present case, the deceased-Deepak at the
time of death was 24 years of age and the same was established
from the copy of his driving licence (Ex.P-10), copy of his
secondary school examination certificate (Ex.P-11), and copy of
his 'C' certificate of NCC(Ex.P-12) wherein his date of birth was
shown as 25.10.1996. Thus, the learned Tribunal while placing
reliance upon "Smt. Sarla Verma and others vs. Delhi
Transport Corporation and another", reported as 2009(3)
RCR (Civil) 77, and "National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Pranay
Sethi and others" reported as (2017) 16 SCC 680 rightly
granted 40% of the income towards future prospects and
5 of 8
FAO No. 3621 of 2023 (O&M) -6-
appropriately applied multiplier of 18. Further, as the deceased
was a bachelor and had only his parents as dependents with no
medical disability attached to them, the learned Tribunal was
right in applying 50% deduction towards his personal expenses.
QUESTION OF COMPENSATION UNDER CONVENTIONAL
HEADS
[8] Furthermore, in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble
Apex Court in Smt. Sarla Verma's case (supra), Pranay
Sethi's case (supra) and "United India Insurance Co.Ltd. vs.
Satinder Kaur", reported as (2021) 11 SCC 780, compensation
awarded under conventional heads is also required to be
assessed accordingly. The appellants/claimants are thus, held
entitled for Rs. 18,000/- as compensation under funeral head
and Rs. 18,000/- towards loss of estate. Loss of Consortium is
assessed to the tune of Rs. 96,000/- (48,000 x 2) as
appellants/claimants being the parents of the deceased are
entitled to filial consortium.
CONCLUSION
[9] In view of the discussion made herein above, the
appellants are held entitled for the grant of compensation in the
following manner:-
S.No. Nature Amount (in Rs.)
1. Annual Income of Deceased Rs. 2,88,000/-
(monthly income Rs. 24,000/-)
2. Deduction (1/2nd) Rs. 1,44,000/-
3. Net Income (Rs.2,88,000-Rs. 1,44,000) Rs. 1,44,000/-
4. Future Prospects (40%) Rs. 57,600/-
6 of 8
FAO No. 3621 of 2023 (O&M) -7-
5. Total Income (Rs.1,44,000 + Rs.57,600) Rs. 2,01,600/-
6. Loss of Income after applying Rs. 36,28,800/-
multiplier of 18 as per the age of 24
years (2,01,600 x 18)
7. Loss of estate Rs. 18,000/-
8. Funeral Expenses Rs. 18,000/-
9. Loss of Consortium (48,000 x 2) Rs. 96,000/-
10. Total compensation Rs. 37,60,800/-
11. Amount Awarded by the Tribunal Rs. 19,35,400/-
12. Enhanced Compensation (10-11) Rs. 18,25,400/-
Thus, the appellants shall be entitled for enhanced
compensation in the proportion already granted by the Tribunal.
[10] The grant of interest @ 9% interest per annum from
the date of institution of claim petition is equitable and just, in
view of the observations made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
"Smt. Supe Dei and others vs. National Insurance Company
Limited and other", reported as (2009) (4) SCC 513 and
approved in a subsequent judgment titled as "Puttamma and
others vs. K.L. Narayana Reddy and another, 2014 (1) RCR
(Civil) 443". In case the said amount is not paid within three
months, the same shall be payable thereafter along with 12%
interest from the date of expiry of period of three months from
today. Needless to mention here that the amount of
compensation already paid to the claimants shall be deducted
from the enhanced compensation.
[11] In view of the aforesaid modification, the present
appeal stands disposed off.
7 of 8
FAO No. 3621 of 2023 (O&M) -8-
[12] Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also
stand(s) disposed off.
March 11, 2026 ( HARKESH MANUJA )
'dk kamra' JUDGE
Whether Speaking / Reasoned : Yes No
Whether Reportable : Yes No
8 of 8
