[Cites 4, Cited by 0]
Punjab-Haryana High Court
Dharam Raj And Others vs Ismail And Others on 19 March, 2026
(Pronouncement)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
FAO No. 4753 of 2019 (O&M)
Reserved On: 17.02.2026
Pronounced On: 19.03.2026
Uploaded On:
On:19.03.2026
Dharam Raj and others
...Appellants
Versus
Ismail and others
...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJA
Argued By:-
By Mr. Arjun Atri, Advocate
for the appellants-claimants.
claimants.
Mr. Gaurav, Advocate for
Mr. Sanjeev Goyal, Advocate
for respondent No. 4-Insurance
Insurance Company.
****
HARKESH MANUJA, J.
By way of present appeal, challenge has been laid to an
award dated 30.04.2014 passed by the learned Motor Accident
Claims Tribunal, Mewat (for brevity, "the Tribunal")
Tribunal"), whereby an
amount of Rs.6,01,000/-
Rs. was awarded as compensation to the
appellants/claimants along with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the
date of filing of petition till its realization on account of death of
Pooran in motor vehicular accident, that occurred on 2
21.03.2011.
[2] Since
ince the sole issue for determination in the present
appeal is confined to the quantum of compensation
compensation, a detailed
narration of the facts of
of the case is omitted herein for the sake of
brevity.
1 of 7
FAO No. 4753 of 2019 (O&M) -2-
ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE
APPELLANTS
[3] Learned counsel for the appellants/claimants assailed the
impugned award on the ground that the learned Tribunal erroneously
assessed the compensation at a paltry sum of ₹ 6,01,000/-. It was
further contended that the learned Tribunal failed to award any
amount under the conventional heads of parental consortium and loss
of estate. Learned counsel also submitted that the rate of interest
awarded by the learned Tribunal was on the lower side and,
therefore, deserved to be suitably enhanced. It was additionally
argued that the interest ought to have been awarded from the date of
the accident, instead of from the date of filing of the claim petition. On
the aforesaid grounds, learned counsel prayed for enhancement of
the compensation awarded by the Tribunal.
ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF LEARNED COUNSEL FOR
RESPONDENT No.4/INSURANCE COMPANY
[4] Per contra, learned counsel representing respondent
No.4-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.
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.
2 of 7
FAO No. 4753 of 2019 (O&M) -3-
QUESTION AS TO THE INCOME OF THE DECEASED
[6] In the present case, no oral or documentary evidence
was brought on record to establish the exact nature of employment or
the monthly income of the deceased. The learned Tribunal, treating
the deceased as a casual labourer, assessed his monthly income at
the rate of Rs 4,500/-. It may be noted that the proceedings in Motor
Accident Claims, are summary in nature and strict rules of evidence
are not required to be adhered to. It is equally well settled that while
determining the notional income in cases where strict proof is not
forthcoming, the Court is required to adopt a pragmatic and realistic
approach so as to arrive at a just and reasonable figure, keeping in
view the surrounding circumstances and the economic realities of life.
[6.1] In this regard, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of
"Chandra @ Chanda @ Chandraram vs. Mukesh Kumar Yadav
& Ors.", reported as (2022) 1 SCC 198, held that in the
absence of proof of income, the minimum wage notification can be a
yardstick but at the same time cannot be absolute one to fix the
income of the deceased and some guesswork is required to be done
to assess the income. Relevant excerpt thereof is reproduced
hereunder:-
".......In the absence of salary certificate the minimum wage
notification can be a yardstick but at the same time cannot
be an absolute one to fix the income of the deceased. In
the absence of documentary evidence on record some
amount of guesswork is required to be done. But at the
same time the guesswork for assessing the income of
deceased should not be totally detached from reality.
Merely because claimants were unable to produce
3 of 7
FAO No. 4753 of 2019 (O&M) -4-
documentary evidence to show the monthly income of
Shivpal, same does not justify adoption of lowest tier of
minimum wage while computing the income. There is no
reason to discard the oral evidence of the wife of the
deceased who has deposed that late Shivpal was earning
around Rs. 15,000/- per month......"
[6.2] Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court reiterated the same
in the case of Jakir Hussein vs. Sabir and others, reported as
2015(2) R.C.R (Civil)141 . Relevant excerpt is reproduced herein
below:
" 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."
[7] In the case at hand, the deceased was maintaining his
family comprising three sons, out of whom two were minors at the
time of the accident. This circumstance itself indicates that the
deceased was earning sufficiently to sustain and support his
household. Keeping in view the prevailing wages of unskilled
labourers at the relevant point of time, the responsibility of
maintaining a family, and the general rise in the cost of living, this
Court deems it just and appropriate to reassess the monthly income
of the deceased at ₹5,500/-.
4 of 7
FAO No. 4753 of 2019 (O&M) -5-
QUESTION OF FUTURE PROSPECTS, MULTIPLIER AND
DEDUCTION TOWARDS PERSONAL EXPENSES
[8] In the present case, no evidence other than the Post
Mortem Report (Ex. PW-7/B) of deceased Pooran was brought on
record and the same reflects the age of the deceased as 32 years.
Accordingly, it can safely be taken that the deceased was 32 years of
age at the time of the accident. Thus, in view of the law laid down in
"Smt. Sarla Verma and others Versus Delhi Transport
Corporation and another", reported as 2009(3) RCR (Civil) 77, and
"National Insurance Co. Ltd. Versus Pranay Sethi and others"
reported as (2017) 16 SCC 680, 40% of the income is granted
towards future prospects. Further, since the deceased was survived
by 3 sons, ld. Tribunal rightly applied deduction of 1/3rd towards his
personal expenses and was correct in applying multiplier of 16 while
considering him to be 32 years old.
QUESTION OF COMPENSATION UNDER CONVENTIONAL
HEADS
[9] 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. 1,44,000/-
(48,000 x 3) as appellants/claimants being the sons of the deceased
are entitled to parental consortium.
5 of 7
FAO No. 4753 of 2019 (O&M) -6-
QUESTION OF LIABLITY AND RECOVERY RIGHTS
[10] The findings recorded by the learned Tribunal on Issue
Nos. 3 and 4, pertaining to the possession of a valid and effective
driving licence by respondent No. 3 (driver) at the time of the accident
and the alleged violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance
policy by respondent No. 1 (owner), have been categorically returned
against respondent No. 4 (Insurance Company), inasmuch as it failed
to adduce any cogent evidence to substantiate its defence. In such
circumstances, the learned Tribunal, while holding all the respondents
jointly and severally liable, erred in granting respondent No. 4-
Insurance Company recovery rights. Consequently, the entire liability
to satisfy the award is fastened upon respondent No. 4-Insurance
Company alone, without any right of recovery from the other
respondents.
CONCLUSION
[11] In view of the discussion made hereinabove, the
appellants/claimants are held entitled for the grant of compensation in
the following manner:-
S.No. Nature Amount (in Rs.)
1. Annual Income of Deceased 66,000/-
(monthly income Rs. 5,500/-)
2. Deduction (1/3rd) 22,000/-
3. Net Income (Rs.66,000-Rs.22,000) 44,000/-
4. Future Prospects (40%) 17,600/-
5. Total Income (Rs.44,000 + Rs.17,600) 61,600/-
6. Loss of Income after applying multiplier of 9,85,600/-
16 as per the age of 32 years (61,600 x 16)
7. Loss of estate 18,000/-
8. Funeral Expenses 18,000/-
9. Loss of Consortium (48,000 x 3) 1,44,000/-
10. Total compensation 11,65,600/-
6 of 7
FAO No. 4753 of 2019 (O&M) -7-
11. Amount Awarded by the Tribunal 6,01,000/-
12. Enhanced Compensation (10-11) 5,64,600/-
[12] The grant of interest @ 7.5% per annum is not 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,
thus, the interest is enhanced to 9% per annum on the amount of
compensation awarded to the claimants from the date of institution of
claim petition till its realization. In case the said amount is not paid
within three months, the same shall be payable thereafter along with
12% interest from the 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.
[13] In view of the aforesaid modification, the present appeal
stands disposed of.
[14] Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also
stand(s) disposed off.
March 19, 2026 ( HARKESH MANUJA )
'dk kamra' JUDGE
Whether Speaking / Reasoned : Yes No
Whether Reportable : Yes No
7 of 7
