Umesh and Others Vs Sanjay Singh and Others — Motor Accident Claims | Punjab & Haryana HC (2025)

Umesh and Others Vs Sanjay Singh and Others — Motor Accident Claims | Punjab & Haryana HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Appeal partly allowed without notice to respondents: consortium of Rs.44,000/- each granted to claimant Nos. 1, 2, 7, 8 and 9 (parents and three minor children), aggregating Rs.2,20,000/-, in addition to the Tribunal's award of Rs.23,61,800/- with interest @ 9% per annum; respondents aggrieved by the enhancement may revive the appeal within eight weeks; Registry directed to send a copy of the order to the respondents by registered/speed post; pending applications disposed of.

Issue for consideration

Whether the notional income of the deceased taken at Rs.10,000/- per month should be enhanced on the plea that he worked as a Driver earning Rs.25,000/- per month. +2 more

Court's answer

Appellants' contention that the deceased earned Rs.25,000/- p.m. rejected: pleadings varied (Rs.20,000/- p.m. pleaded before the Tribunal) and no documentary evidence of income was produced; the learned Tribunal correctly assessed notional income of the deceased at Rs.10,000/- p.m.

Ratio / Principle

Claimants No. 1 and 2 (parents) and claimants No. 7, 8 and 9 (three minor children) of the deceased are each entitled to consortium of Rs.44,000/-, i.e. Rs.2,20,000/- in aggregate, in addition to the consortium already granted to the widow.

Key takeaways

Claimants No. 3, 4 and 5 (brother and sisters of the deceased) were correctly held not to be dependent on the deceased.ratio¶30
The Tribunal's deduction of 1/5th towards personal expenses, yielding monthly salary of Rs.8,000/- (Rs.10,000 minus Rs.2,000), was correct.ratio¶30
With the deceased aged 28 years at the time of death, the multiplier of 17 was correctly applied.ratio

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

FAO-2676-2024 (O&M), High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh (Nidhi Gupta, J.), decided 04.12.2025 — Claimants' appeal for enhancement of compensation for the death of Harinandan Yadav (28 years) in a motor vehicular accident of 26.01.2021 involving Trailer-TATA Motors No.RJ32GC-4109. MACT Rohtak, by Award dated 18.07.2023 in MACP Case No. 79 dated 02.03.2021 (Section 166 MV Act), had awarded Rs.23,61,800/- with interest @ 9% per annum against the driver, owner and insurer jointly and severally. Delay of 172 days in filing the appeal condoned (CM-10078-CII-2024, Section 5 Limitation Act). Held: (i) notional income of Rs.10,000/- p.m. correctly assessed — the claim of Rs.25,000/- p.m. based on PW2 (Cleaner) was unsupported by documentary evidence and inconsistent with Rs.20,000/- p.m. pleaded before the Tribunal; (ii) sibling claimants Nos. 3, 4 and 5 rightly held non-dependent; deduction of 1/5th towards personal expenses and multiplier of 17 (age 28) correct; (iii) relying on National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi (SLP(C) No. 25590 of 2014), consortium of Rs.44,000/- each extended to the parents (claimants 1 and 2) and three minor children (claimants 7, 8 and 9), adding Rs.2,20,000/-. Appeal partly allowed without notice to respondents, who were granted liberty to revive the appeal within eight weeks.

FAO-2676-2024 (O&M) - 1 -

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

124 FAO-2676-2024 (O&M) Date of decision: 04.12.2025

Umesh and others

...Appellant(s)

Vs.

Sanjay Singh and others

...Respondent(s)

CORAM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA

Present:Mr. Virender Soni, Advocate for the appellants.

NIDHI GUPTA, J.

CM-10078-CII-2024

Prayer in this application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act is for condonation of delay of 172 days in filing the accompanying appeal.

Heard.

For the reasons mentioned in the application which is duly supported by an afÏdavit of the applicant/appellant No.1 the same is allowed and delay of 172 days in filing the appeal is condoned.

FAO-2676-2024 (O&M)

The present appeal has been filed by the claimants seeking enhancement of compensation of Rs.23,61,800/- awarded by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Rohtak (hereinafter referred to as “the learned Tribunal”) vide Award dated 18.07.2023 passed in MACP Case No. 79 dated 02.03.2021 filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act,

DIVYANSHI 2025.12.05 19:11 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

FAO-2676-2024 (O&M) - 2 -

(hereinafter referred to as “the Act”). The nine claimants before the learned Tribunal are 51-year-old father; 50-year-old mother; 17-year-old brother; 8- year-old sister; 6-year-old sister; 29-year-old widow; and 3 minor children of the deceased Harinandan Yadav, who was 28 years old at the time of accident.

Brief facts of the case are that the learned Tribunal on the basis of pleadings and evidence adduced before it concluded that the deceased-Harinandan Yadav had died due to the injuries suffered by him in a motor vehicular accident that took place on 26.01.2021 at about 02:00 a.m. due to the rash and negligent driving of a Trailer-TATA Motors bearing registration No.RJ32GC-4109 (hereinafter “the offending vehicle”) being driven by respondent No.1; owned by respondent No.2; and insured by respondent No.3. The learned Tribunal awarded the above said compensation along with interest @ 9% per annum. All the respondents were held liable to pay the said compensation jointly and severally.

Learned counsel for the appellants seeks enhancement of compensation by submitÝng that the income of the deceased has been taken on the lower side as only Rs.10,000/-p.m. It is submitted that from the evidence of PW2 Cleaner of Truck, appellants had proved that the deceased was a driver and earning Rs.25,000/- per month. As such, income of the deceased deserves to be enhanced. It is also submitted that consortium has been awarded only to claimant No.6/widow of the deceased; whereas all the claimants were entitled to grant of consortium.

DIVYANSHI 2025.12.05 19:11 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

FAO-2676-2024 (O&M) - 3 -

Thus, compensation is very much on the lower side and deserves to be enhanced to Rs.50 lacs on account of death of Harinandan Yadav.

No other argument is raised on behalf of the appellants. I have heard ld. counsel and perused the case file in detail.

I find no merit in the contention of the appellants in respect of income of the deceased - to the effect that it was proved that deceased was working as Driver and earning Rs.25,000/- p.m. The argument of the appellants is proved wrong from the fact that before the learned Tribunal the claimants had pleaded that deceased was earning Rs.20,000/- per month; whereas before this Court, it has been stated that deceased was earning Rs.25,000/- p.m. Even further appellants can derive no benefit

from the evidence of PW2 the alleged Cleaner of the Truck as no documentary evidence has been produced by the appellants to prove the alleged income of the deceased. In this circumstance, learned Tribunal had correctly assessed notional income of the deceased as Rs.10,000/p.m.

Further, claimants No. 3, 4 and 5 were correctly held not to be dependent on the deceased as they are sisters and brother of the deceased. Thus, learned Tribunal had correctly made deduction of 1/5th towards personal expenses; thereby calculating total monthly salary as Rs.8,000/- (Rs.10,000-2,000); and annual income to be Rs.96,000/(Rs.8,000 x 12). Age of the deceased was determined to be 28 years at the time of his death. Therefore, multiplier of 17 was correctly applied;

DIVYANSHI 2025.12.05 19:11 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

FAO-2676-2024 (O&M) - 4 -

thereby calculating annual dependency to be Rs.16,32,000/- (Rs.96,000 x 17). Learned Tribunal had further added future prospects @ 40%; thereby granting total compensation of Rs.22,84,800/- (Rs.16,32,000+Rs.6,52,800). Under the conventional heads, learned Tribunal had awarded Rs. 16,500/for loss of estate; Rs.44,000/- for loss of consortium to widow; and Rs.16,500 /- for funeral expenses; thereby granting total compensation of Rs.23,61,800/- (Rs.22,84,800+16,500+44,000+16,500). However, claimants No. 1 and 2 being parents, and claimants No. 7, 8 and 9 being minor children of the deceased are entitled to consortium of Rs.44,000/- each i.e. Rs.2,20,000/-.

Accordingly, the present appeal is partly allowed in the above terms without notice to the respondents as the said enhancement is in conformity with the law laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in “National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi and others”, Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 25590 of 2014. However, in case any of the respondents are aggrieved of the above enhancement of compensation, liberty is granted to them to revive the present appeal within eight weeks. Registry is further directed to send a copy of this order to the respondents by registered/speed post.

Pending application(s) if any also stand(s) disposed of.

04.12.2025 (NIDHI GUPTA) Divyanshi JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether reportable: Yes/No

DIVYANSHI 2025.12.05 19:11 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document