Khalil and Others Vs Khurshid Ahmed and Others — Motor Accident Claims | Punjab & Haryana HC (2025)

Khalil and Others Vs Khurshid Ahmed and Others — Motor Accident Claims | Punjab & Haryana HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

Issue for consideration

Whether the delay of 276 days in filing appeal FAO-3019-2025 should be condoned (application CM-9641-CII-2025), the justification offered being illiteracy and failure to arrange money. +1 more

Court's answer

The application for condonation of the 276 days' delay is dismissed: the justification of illiteracy and failure to arrange money is hardly believable and there is no ground to condone the delay.

Ratio / Principle

Even if considered on merits despite being barred by limitation, the appeal is found to contain no substance.

Key takeaways

The Tribunal did not commit any error in assuming the notional income of the deceased at Rs. 10,000/- per month; although counsel relied on the Labour Commissioner, Haryana notification dated 15.06.2021 showing minimum wages of Rs. 10,188.83 per month for semi-skilled persons (category A), he conceded there was no cogent evidence that the deceased ran a shop and no evidence of educational qualification.ratio¶19
Finding the present appeal devoid of any merit, the appeal is dismissed.ratio¶19

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Punjab and Haryana High Court (Deepak Gupta, J., oral) — CM-9641-CII-2025 in/and FAO-3019-2025, decided 14.11.2025: Appeal by the legal representatives of deceased Sahnaj for enhancement of motor-accident compensation dismissed. (i) Condonation of 276 days' delay sought on grounds of illiteracy and failure to arrange money rejected as hardly believable; application dismissed. (ii) On merits, the Tribunal's award of Rs. 20,93,000/- with interest under Section 166, Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (fatal accident of 10.09.2021) upheld: notional income of Rs. 10,000/- per month held correct despite the Labour Commissioner, Haryana notification dated 15.06.2021 fixing minimum wages at Rs. 10,188.83 per month for semi-skilled workers (category A), since counsel conceded there was no cogent evidence that the deceased ran a shop and no evidence of his educational qualification.

107 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

CM-9641-CII-2025 in/and FAO-3019-2025 Date of Decision: November 14, 2025

Khalil and others … Appellants

Versus

Khurshid Ahmed and others …Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA

Present: - Mr. Nafees Ahmed Khan, Advocate for the appellants.

DEEPAK GUPTA, J.(Oral)

Present appeal is accompanied by an applica�on bearing No. CM-9641-CII-2025 , so as to condone the delay of 276 days in filing the appeal. The only jus�fica�on given by the applicant-appellant to condone the delay is that due to illiteracy and the failure to arrange the money, the applicant-appellant could not file the appeal in �me. The jus�fica�on given by the applicant-appellant is hardly believable. As such, there is no ground to condone the delay. The applica�on is accordingly dismissed.

Though the appeal deserves to be dismissed being barred by limita�on, but even if the same is considered on merits, it is found to contain no substance.

In a motor vehicular accident, which took place on 10.09.2021, one Sahnaj lost his life. His legal representa�ves filed claim pe��on under Sec�on 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The Tribunal, on the basis of evidence on record, assessed the compensa�on of �20,93,000/- payable along with interest.

Seeking enhancement, it is contended by learned counsel for the appellants that the no�onal income of the deceased has been taken @

Sarita Rani 2025.11.14 18:09 I attest to the accuracy of this document/order

CM-9641-CII-2025 in/and FAO-3019-2025

2025:PHHC:158110

- 2 -

�10,000/- per month, though it should be �10,188/- per month, which were the minimum wages at the relevant �me.

Learned counsel for the appellants has drawn a5en�on towards the No�fica�on dated 15.06.2021 issued by the Labour Commissioner, Haryana, which would reveal that w.e.f. 01.01.2021, the minimum wages for unskilled person is �9,703.68; whereas for semi-skilled person of category (A) the same is �10,188.83 per month. Though learned counsel for the appellants submits that the deceased was a shopkeeper and on that basis contends that the minimum wages for semi-skilled person should be taken into considera�on, but concedes that there is no cogent evidence that the deceased was running any shop. Besides, there was no evidence to show that the deceased was having educa�onal qualifica�on.

Having regard to the aforesaid circumstances, this Court is of the view that the Tribunal did not commit any error in assuming the no�onal income of the deceased @ �10,000/- per month. As such, finding the present appeal to be devoid of any merit, the same are hereby dismissed.

November 14, 2025 (DEEPAK GUPTA) sarita JUDGE Whether reasoned/speaking: Yes/No Whether reportable: Yes/No

Sarita Rani 2025.11.14 18:09 I attest to the accuracy of this document/order