Sukhiya and Ors. Vs Kala and Ors. — Motor Accident Claims | Punjab & Haryana HC (2026)

Sukhiya and Ors. Vs Kala and Ors. — Motor Accident Claims | Punjab & Haryana HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

Issue for consideration

Whether the compensation of ₹3,16,700/- awarded by the learned Tribunal required enhancement.

Court's answer

With three dependents, deduction of 1/3rd towards personal and living expenses was rightly made; considering the deceased's age of 22 years, multiplier of '16' was applied.

Ratio / Principle

The Court finds that the learned Tribunal applied the appropriate multiplier, made proper deduction towards personal expenses and, in the absence of documentary proof, assessed the income on a reasonable basis keeping in view the period of the accident.

Key takeaways

No material placed on record demonstrated that the Tribunal's assessment was arbitrary or contrary to settled principles prevailing at the time of the accident.ratio¶28
In the absence of any ground warranting interference for enhancement, the Court found no merit in the present appeal, which accordingly stands dismissed.ratio¶30
Pending applications stand disposed of, and the liability as determined by the learned Tribunal shall remain unaltered.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Punjab & Haryana (Nidhi Gupta J., oral), FAO No.1762 of 2008 (O & M), decided 26.02.2026: Appeal by claimants — widow and parents of deceased Suker Ali (aged 22 years at accident of 27.06.2004) — for enhancement of ₹3,16,700/- awarded by the MACT, Jhajjar (Award dt. 19.09.2007, MACT Petition No.128 of 2004/2005, under Sections 166 and 149, Motor Vehicles Act, 1988). The Tribunal had assessed monthly income at ₹2,400/- (deceased claimed to be an expert brick mason/mistri; no documentary proof of income; age per Post Mortem Report Ex.P-24), deducted 1/3rd personal expenses for the three dependents, applied multiplier '16', and awarded ₹9,500/- under conventional heads. Finding the Tribunal's multiplier, deduction and income assessment reasonable for the accident period, with no material showing the assessment arbitrary and no ground warranting interference (none appearing for the appellants, who remained unserved), the Court dismissed the appeal, disposed of pending applications, and observed that the liability as determined by the Tribunal shall remain unaltered.

FAO-1762-2008 (O & M)

1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

117

FAO No.1762 of 2008 (O & M) Date of decision :-26.02.2026

Sukhiya and others

…..Appellants

Versus

Kala and others

…..Respondents

CORAM:- HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA

Present:None for the appellants.

Mr. Rahul Noorie, Advocate for Mr. Abhimanyu Singh, Adv o cate for respondent No.2. Mr. Diwan S. Adlakha, Adv o cate for respondent No.3Insurance Company.

NIDHI GUPTA J. (Oral)

The present appeal has b e en filed by the claimants seeking e nhancement of compensation o f ₹3,16,700/- awarded by the learned M otor Accident Claims Tribun a l (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Tri b unal’), Jhajjar vide Award d ated 19.09.2007 passed in MACT P etition No.128 of 2004/2005 d ated 19.08.2004/28.11.2005 filed under Sections 166 and 149 of th e Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinaf t er referred to as ‘the Act’).

The three claimants are th e widow and the parents of deceased Suker Ali, who was stated to b e 22 years of age at the time of the ac c ident.

VIJAY ASIJA 2026.02.27 19.07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

2

FAO-1762-2008 (O & M)

On the last date of hearing i .e. 01.08.2025, noticing that there ha d been no representation on be h alf of the appellants on the previous two dates i.e. 08.07.2025 and 16.07.2025, this Court had directed issuance of actual date of hearin g notice to the parties as well as learne d counsel for 26.02.2026. Reg i stry was further directed to make eff o rts through the Sarpanch of t h e concerned village and the SHO of t h e concerned area to effect service upon the parties.

As per office report, appell a nts remain unserved as they are not r e siding at given address; and le a rned counsel for the parties have bee n informed.

Today, when the matter h a s been taken up, none has appeared on behalf of the appellants. In the aforesaid premise, issuance o f fresh notice to the appellants w ould be a futile exercise. Be that as it may, this Court h as perused the record. The age of the deceased w a s determined to be 22 years on the b a sis of Post Mortem Report (Ex . P-24). It was the case of the claimant s that the deceased was an e x pert brick mason (mistri), however, in the absence of any documen t ary proof regarding income, the learn e d Tribunal assessed his month l y income at ₹2,400/- on the basis of t h e statements available on recor d .

Since there were three dependents, deduction of 1/3rd towards p ersonal and living expenses w a s rightly made. Considering the age o f 22 years, multiplier of ‘16’ was applied. The learned Tribunal further awarded a sum of ₹9,50 0 /- under conventional heads including consortium and loss of estate , thereby assessing the total compens a tion at ₹3,16,700/-.

VIJAY ASIJA 2026.02.27 19.07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

3

FAO-1762-2008 (O & M)

Learned counsel appearing for respondents No.2 and 3 has sub m itted that the accident had take n place on 27.06.2004 and as per the l a w prevailing at the relevant tim e , the compensation awarded was just, fair and reasonable.

Having considered the mat t er, this Court finds that the learned T ribunal applied the appropri a te multiplier, made proper deductio n towards personal expenses an d assessed the income in the absence o f documentary proof on a reas o nable basis keeping in view the period of accident. No material has been placed on record to demonstr a te that the assessment was ei t her arbitrary or contrary to settled pr i nciples prevailing at the time.

In the absence of any groun d warranting interference for

enhance m ent, this Court finds no merit i n the present appeal.

Accordingly, the appeal stan d s dismissed .

Pending application(s), if a n y, shall also stand disposed of.

Needless to observe that the l iability as determined by the learned T ribunal shall remain unaltered.

February 26, 2026 ( NIDHI GUPTA ) Vijay Asija JUDGE Whether sp e aking/reasoned Yes / No Whether Re p ortable Yes / No

VIJAY ASIJA 2026.02.27 19.07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document