Pooja and Others Vs Surender Jaglan and Another — Motor Accident Claims | Punjab & Haryana HC (2026)

Pooja and Others Vs Surender Jaglan and Another — Motor Accident Claims | Punjab & Haryana HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None to the appellants; pending application(s), if any, stand(s) disposed of.

Issue for consideration

Whether the monthly income of the deceased assessed by the Tribunal at ₹10,000/- (against the ₹25,000/- per month contended for as agriculturist-cum-dairy farmer) was taken on the lower side and merited enhancement. +4 more

Court's answer

Taking the deceased's income at ₹10,000/- per month involved no error: his education, avocation and income remained unproved — PW-1 (widow) deposed he was ITI Diploma holder but produced no record, PW-2 (father) gave contradictory statements (10+2 pass and ITI) and admitted bringing no record of education or income, and the deceased was not an income tax payee.

Ratio / Principle

The addition of 40% towards future prospects was correctly made, the deceased's age of 22 years being determined on the basis of Post-mortem Report Ex. P-6, in conformity with the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi and others, (2017) 16 SCC 680.

Key takeaways

The Tribunal had correctly applied the multiplier of 18.ratio¶28
The deduction of 1/3rd towards personal expenses was appropriate, there being 03 claimants.ratio¶28
In fact, claimant No. 3, the 52-year-old father of the deceased, could not have been held to be dependent upon the deceased.ratio¶28

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — Enhancement of compensation refused; FAO-2063-2025 (O&M) dismissed (NIDHI GUPTA, J., decision dated 23.03.2026, High Court of Punjab and Haryana). Appellants (widow aged 20, mother aged 50, father aged 52 of deceased-Rupesh, aged 22 at the accident of 29.11.2020) challenged the Award dated 20.09.2024 of the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Narnaul (MACP No. 67-2021, Section 166 MV Act) granting ₹21,66,000/- (net ₹19,49,400/- after 10% deduction towards contributory negligence) with interest @ 7.5% per annum. Court upheld: income of ₹10,000/- per month (education, avocation and income unproved; deceased not an income tax payee); 40% addition towards future prospects in conformity with National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 680; multiplier of 18; 1/3rd deduction towards personal expenses (three claimants; 52-year-old father could not in fact have been held dependent); conventional heads of ₹40,000/- loss of consortium each to the three claimants, ₹15,000/- funeral expenses, ₹15,000/- loss of estate. Beneficial nature of Chapter-12 of the Act cautioned: compensation must be just and reasonable — neither bonanza nor pittance; misplaced sympathy/generosity cannot guide determination (State of Haryana v. Jasbir Kaur; Divisional Controller KSRTC v. Mahadeva Shetty, (2003) 7 SCC 197; General Manager, KSRTC v. Susamma Thomas, 1994 Vol. II SCC 176). Delay of 75 days in filing the appeal condoned (CM-6566-CII-2025, Section 5 Limitation Act r/w Section 151 CPC). Pending application(s) disposed of.

Issues for consideration

5 issues framed by the court

AI extract

1.
Whether the monthly income of the deceased assessed by the Tribunal at ₹10,000/- (against the ₹25,000/- per month contended for as agriculturist-cum-dairy farmer) was taken on the lower side and merited enhancement.¶19
The court held
Taking the deceased's income at ₹10,000/- per month involved no error: his education, avocation and income remained unproved — PW-1 (widow) deposed he was ITI Diploma holder but produced no record, PW-2 (father) gave contradictory statements (10+2 pass and ITI) and admitted bringing no record of education or income, and the deceased was not an income tax payee.ratio¶28
2.
Whether the Tribunal erred in making a deduction of 1/3rd towards the personal expenses of the deceased.¶22
The court held
The deduction of 1/3rd towards personal expenses was appropriate, there being 03 claimants.ratio¶28
3.
Whether the multiplier of 18 applied by the Tribunal (with computation on the basis of the deceased's age of 22 years and 40% addition towards future prospects) was wrongly applied.¶22
The court held
The addition of 40% towards future prospects was correctly made, the deceased's age of 22 years being determined on the basis of Post-mortem Report Ex. P-6, in conformity with the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi and others, (2017) 16 SCC 680.ratio¶28
4.
Whether the amounts under the conventional heads were inadequate, the appellants contending for ₹5,00,000/- towards loss of estate and ₹20,00,000/- towards parental consortium.¶22
The court held
The awards under the conventional heads — ₹40,000/- each to all the 03 claimants towards loss of consortium, ₹15,000/- towards funeral expenses and ₹15,000/- towards loss of estate, totalling ₹19,49,400/- to the appellant-claimants — called for no disturbance.ratio¶28
5.
Whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal vide Award dated 20.09.2024 required modification/enhancement by this Court.¶22
The court held
Chapter-12 of the Act, though beneficial legislation, cannot be allowed to be treated as a windfall or a source of profit; the amount of compensation should be just and reasonable — neither a bonanza nor a source of profit, yet not a pittance — and misplaced sympathy, generosity and benevolence cannot be the guiding factor for determining compensation.ratio¶31