Amarjit Kaur and Others Vs Gurcharan Singh and Others

Present appeal has been filed by claimants seeking enhancement of compensa'on of Rs.39,95,424/- awarded by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Hoshiarpur (hereina2er ‘the learned Tribunal’) vide Award dated 27.11.2018 passed in MACT Case RBT No.46 dated 23.02.2016 filed under Sec'on 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act (hereina2er “the Act”). The four claimants are the 38-yearold widow, 17-year-old, 16-year-old and 10-year-old daughters of deceased Ranjit Singh, who was 45 years old at the 'me of accident.

¶14

Brief facts of the case are that the ld. Tribunal on the basis of pleadings and oral & documentary evidence adduced by the par'es, concluded that the deceased Ranjit Singh had died due to the injuries suffered by him in a motor vehicular accident that took place on 23.10.2015 due to the rash and negligent driving of truck bearing registra'on No.PB-10-CY-1791 (hereina2er

¶15

“the offending vehicle”) being driven by respondent No.1, and owned by MONIKA VERMA 2026.02.26 09:00 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment chandigarh

¶16

FAO-1878-2019 (O&M) 2

¶17

respondent No.2 and insured by respondent No.3. The said compensa'on has been awarded along with interest @ 6% per annum; and respondent No.3 was held liable to pay the compensa'on amount.

¶18

Learned counsel for the appellants seeks enhancement of compensa'on by submiDng that prior to the accident, the deceased was working as a Home Guard with the Punjab Government. On the basis of evidence led by AW-3 Ajay Kumar, Junior Assistant, office of Punjab Home Guard, Hoshiarpur, learned Tribunal had assessed the income of the deceased as Rs.972/- per day; and monthly income of Rs.25272/- (Rs.972x26=25272/-). However, in compu'ng the monthly income of the deceased, deduc'on of 4 days has been made on account of 4 Sundays that come in a month. Learned counsel relies upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Grah Rakshak, Home

¶19

Guards Wel. Asso. Vs. State of H.P. & ors., 2015 AIR (SCW) 2088 , wherein it is held that duty allowance should be paid to Home Guard for 30 days in a month. It is submiMed that therefore, income of the deceased ought to have been calculated for 30 days in a month and not 26. Therefore, the dispute is regarding

¶20

salary for 4 days i.e. approximately Rs.4000/-.

¶21

Learned counsel further submits that proper compensa'on has not been awarded under the conven'onal heads. It is accordingly prayed that the present Appeal be allowed; and the compensa'on payable to the appellants be enhanced as above.

¶22

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent No.3 opposes the submissions advanced on behalf of the appellants and submits that the impugned Award suffers from no error; and present appeal be dismissed.

¶23

MONIKA VERMA 2026.02.26 09:00 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment chandigarh

¶24

FAO-1878-2019 (O&M) 3

¶25

No other argument is made on behalf of the par'es. I have heard learned counsel and perused the case file in detail. I find some merit in the submissions advanced on behalf of the appellants.

¶26

The first conten'on of learned counsel for the appellants is that while compu'ng income of the deceased, salary of the deceased should have been taken for all the 30 days, and four holidays i.e. 4 Sundays could not have been deducted while compu'ng the income. In support, learned counsel has relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Grah Rakshak, Home Guards (supra) . However, in this regard, learned counsel has been unable to make out parity between the facts of the present case and the relied-upon

¶27

judgment in Grah Rakshak, Home Guards Wel. Asso.’s case (supra). Further, it is also to be noted that the relied-upon judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court was passed on dated 11.03.2015; i.e. prior to the passing of the impugned Award on dated 27.11.2018. It is very candidly admiMed by learned counsel for the appellants that the said judgment was not brought to the no'ce of the Tribunal at the 'me of arguing the claim pe''on. As such, I find no error in the income as assessed by the learned Tribunal as Rs.972/- per day; Rs.25272/- per month with the following reasoning: -

¶28

“14. The claimants also examined AW3 Ajay Kumar (Jr. Assistant) office of Punjab Home Guard, Hoshiarpur. He has deposed that Ranjit Singh No. 25910 son of Sarwan Singh resident of village Khunkhun Kalan was working as a member of Punjab Home Guard and has died in a road accident on 23.10.2015. He was ge2ng salary on daily basis to the tune of Rs. 972/- per day + Rs. 80/- per month washing allowance. He has proved the salary cer8ficate of deceased as Ex.AW2/A.

¶29

MONIKA VERMA 2026.02.26 09:00 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment chandigarh

¶30

FAO-1878-2019 (O&M) 4

¶31

15. The next factor to be considered is the income of the deceased. Although it is being claimed that deceased was also doing agriculture work but there is no document led into evidence by the claimants that deceased was doing agriculture work or he was earning anything from agriculture work. From the evidence led on record, it has on daily been proved that deceased was serving as Home Guard and basis Rs. 972/- per day. So, in order to calculate the monthly income of deceased, this Tribunal is of the opinion that deceased must had taken holidays in a month and a<er deduc8ng the amount of holiday i.e. 4 Sundays, monthly income of the deceased comes to Rs. 972 x 26 -25272/-.”

¶32

AdmiMedly, as stated by learned counsel for the appellants, dispute

¶33

is only with regard to salary for four days. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in (SC) SLP No.13931 of 2017 'tled as “New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Vinish Jain & Others” Law Finder Doc ID # 977386 , has held that where difference in compensa'on is about 4 to 5 per cent only, it does not warrant interference by this Court as, such varia'on in compensa'on is within permissible limits.

¶34

This above-said judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court has been followed by the Kerala High Court in “ The Managing Director, Divisional Controller Versus AlikuBy and Others” Law Finder Doc Id # 1885188 . Relevant para 18 of the said judgment is reproduced below:-

¶35

“18. It is to be borne in mind, the accident occurred on 23,2,2019. It is more than 2 ½ years since the respondents 1 to 4 have been knocking at the doors of the Courts seeking compensa8on on account of the death of the bread-winner. It is trite law that the Tribunal is permiBed to do some guess work and also exercise its discre8on to fix the reasonable and just compensa8on, for which there cannot be any straightjacket formula based on mathema8cal precision. In New India Assurance Company Vs. Vinish Jain and

¶36

MONIKA VERMA 2026.02.26 09:00 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment chandigarh

¶37

FAO-1878-2019 (O&M) 5

¶38

Others [(2018) 3 SCC 619], the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that if the fixa8on of compensa8on is within permissible limits, the courts should normally not interfere with such awards”.

¶39

Above said view has been reiterated by the Kerala High Court in “ Reliance General Insurance Company Limited Vs. Adila and Others”, Lawinder Doc ID # 1921609, paras 16 and 17 of which read as under:-

¶40

“ 16. The other area of dispute is that the Tribunal a<er awarding compensa8on under the conven8onal heads has awarded Rs.75,000/- towards loss of love and affec8on and Rs.10,000/awarded towards pain and sufferings.

¶41

17. In New India Assurance Co., Ltd v. Vineesh.J[2018 (3) SCC 619], the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the Appellate Court can permit varia8on of plus or minus 4 to 5 percent.”

¶42

Thus, the ld. Tribunal has correctly assessed income of deceased.

¶43

Further, age of deceased was determined to be 45 years age at the

¶44

'me of accident on the basis of his postmortem report Ex.C-2. Accordingly, Tribunal had correctly made an addi'on of 25% towards future prospects; and correctly applied the mul'plier of 14. As there were four claimants, learned Tribunal has correctly made deduc'on of 1/4^th towards personal expenses. However, under the conven'onal heads, learned Tribunal has awarded only Rs.15000/- towards funeral expenses. Whereas as per the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in “NaEonal Insurance Company Ltd. VS. Pranay Sethi & Others” Law Finder Doc ID # 918174, claimants were also en'tled to Rs.15000/- towards loss of estate; and Rs.40000/- each towards loss of consor'um.

¶45

In view of the above, present appeal stands partly allowed and compensa'on awarded to the appellants is reassessed as follows: -

¶46

MONIKA VERMA 2026.02.26 09:00 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment chandigarh

¶47

FAO-1878-2019 (O&M) 6

¶48

Head	Amount awarded by learned Tribunal	Re-assessed compensaEon
Salary income	Rs.25272/- per month	Rs. 25272/- per month
25% of (1) to be added as future prospects	25272+6318=Rs.31590/- per month	Rs.31590/-
1/4^thof (2) to be deducted as personal expenditure of the deceased	31590-7897=23693/- per month and annual income comes to Rs.23693x12=284316/-	Rs.284316/-
Compensa'on a2er mul'plier of 14 is applied	284316x14=3980424/-	Rs.3980424/-
Funeral expenses	Rs.15000/-	Rs.15000/-
Loss of Estate	Nil	Rs.15,000/-
Consor'um	Nil	Rs.40,000/- x 4 = Rs.1,60,000/-
Total	Rs.39,95,424/-	Rs.41,70,424/-

¶49

Pending applica'on(s) if any also stand(s) disposed of.

¶50

23.02.2026 monika

¶51

(NIDHI GUPTA) JUDGE

¶52

i) Whether speaking/reasoned? Yes/No ii) Whether reportable? Yes/No

¶53

MONIKA VERMA 2026.02.26 09:00 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment chandigarh

Amarjit Kaur and Others v. Gurcharan Singh and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Amarjit Kaur and Others v. Gurcharan Singh and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ran Singh Vs Satyanarain

Mukesh Devi Alias Mukesh and Others Vs Rivigo Services P Ltd. and Others

Ramesh Singh Ahlawat Vs Alok Mittal and Another

Preeti Vs Paramjeet Singh and Others

Ram Kumar and Anr. Vs Ishwar and Ors.

Vikas Arora Vs Harjit Singh and Another