Paramajit Kaur Vs Tafail Maish and Ors.

Present appeal has been preferred by the appellants-claimants who is wife of Jamesh Masih (hereinafter referred to as the ‘ deceased ’), who died in motor vehicular accident which took place on 25.11.2001, on account of rash and negligent driving by respondent No.3 while driving truck bearing registration No. PAT-4986, being aggrieved by the insufficient compensation of Rs.1,40,000/- awarded vide impugned award dated

¶17

RAVINDER DHANIA 2026.07.10 13:03 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶18

-2-

¶19

FAO-2316-2004 FAO-2318-2004

¶20

05.12.2003, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Gurdaspur (hereinafter referred to as ‘ Tribunal ’), being not in accordance with their entitlement.

¶21

Since in present appeal the only issue raised by appellantsclaimants is as regards to quantum of compensation, the detailed facts as regards to manner of accident are not being noticed herein for the sake of brevity.

¶22

In present case, learned Tribunal has awarded the following

¶23

compensation:

¶24

Multiplier	7
Loss of dependency	Rs.20,000/-
Total compensation awarded	Rs.1,40,000/-

¶25

It is the case of the appellant-claimant that deceased was a trained carpenter and was earning Rs.4,000/- per month by doing carpentry work. However, except for oral assertions, no cogent or documentary evidence is available on record to conclude that deceased was working as a carpenter and earning Rs.4,000/- per month. No evidence or material is available on record to conclude that deceased had undergone some training or had become carpenter by experience.

¶26

In absence of any cogent, reliable evidence to show that the deceased was working as a carpenter and earning Rs.4,000 per month, the only conclusion that can be drawn from the evidence of appellant-claimant is that deceased was an able-bodied person, aged about 22 years, married and must be supporting his family. Accordingly, income of deceased, has to be taken equivalent to minimum wages payable to unskilled worker at the time

¶27

RAVINDER DHANIA 2026.07.10 13:03 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶28

FAO-2316-2004 FAO-2318-2004 -3-

¶29

of accident in the year 2001. The income of the deceased is taken as Rs.2,000/- per month on the basis of minimum wages payable to unskilled worker. Since the deceased was 22 years old at the time of accident, therefore, the deceased is entitled to multiplier of ‘18’ as per Sarla Verma Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation, 2009 (3) RCR (Civil) 77. The deceased is survived by wife and parents i.e. 3 dependents and therefore, 1/3^rd deduction is required to be made towards personal expenses of deceased for calculating loss of dependency. Similarly, keeping in view age of the deceased, 40% towards future prospects ought to be added to the income of the deceased in view of judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors. (supra) . Appellantclaimant No.1 shall also be entitled to compensation for loss of spousal consortium @ Rs.40,000/-, appellants-claimants No.2 and 3 shall be entitled to compensation for loss of filial consortium @ Rs.40,000/- each. Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenses and Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate shall also be payable to appellants-claimants. It is however made clear that in case Hon’ble Supreme Court answer the reference regarding quantum of compensation under conventional head made in Hasina Yasmin & Ors. Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd., 2025 SCC Online SC 2919 in favour of appellant, appellant shall be free to seek said amount by moving appropriate application in this regard.

¶30

6. Accordingly, reworked compensation is as under :-

¶31

Income	Rs. 2,000/- per month	Rs 2,000/- per month
Future Prospects	40% (2000+800)	Rs.2,800/-
Deduction	1/3^rd	Rs.1,867/-

¶32

RAVINDER DHANIA 2026.07.10 13:03 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶33

-4-

¶34

FAO-2316-2004 FAO-2318-2004

¶35

		(2800-933)
Multiplier		18	18
Total loss	of	Rs.1,867x12x18	Rs.4,03,272/-
dependency
Loss of Estate			Rs.15,000/-
Funeral Expense	s		Rs.15,000/-
Loss of Sp	ousal		Rs.40,000/-
consortium claimant No.1	to
Loss of par consortium proforma respon no. 5&6	ental to dents	Rs.40,000x2	Rs.80,000/-
Total Compens awarded in appe	ation al		Rs.5,53,272/-
Total Compens	ation	Rs.1,40,000/-
awarded by Tribunal	the
Enhanced amou compensation	nt of	Rs.5,53,272/- (awarded in appeal) – Rs.1.40,000/- (awarded by the Tribunal)	Rs.4,13,272/-

¶36

Keeping in view dependency of appellant-claimant and fact that wife of deceased had re-married. Apportionment of compensation shall be equal to the extent of 1/3rd each. Liability to pay compensation shall be as per award.

¶37

Claimants shall be entitled to enhanced compensation except under conventional heads i.e. loss of consortium, funeral expenses and loss of estate along with 7.5% interest from the date of filing of claim petition till realization of entire amount. Interest on enhanced compensation under conventional heads shall be payable from August 2017 onwards till its realization.

¶38

FAO No.2318-2004

¶39

Injured appellant-claimant had sought compensation for injuries

¶40

RAVINDER DHANIA 2026.07.10 13:03 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶41

FAO-2316-2004 FAO-2318-2004 -5-

¶42

suffered by her in the accident dated 25.11.2001. It is the case of appellantclaimant that after the accident she was initially taken to Civil Hospital, Pathankot for treatment and thereafter, was referred to Muni Lal Hospital, Amritsar where she remained admitted from 26.11.2001 till 09.12.2001. Appellant-claimant while appearing as DW-6 herself had fairly admitted that she had not suffered any permanent disability due to injuries suffered by her in the accident. Keeping in view nature of injuries suffered by appellantclaimant, she shall be entitled to compensation under the heads, medical expenses, special diet, attendant charges and transportation, pain and sufferings. The appellant-claimant shall also be entitled to compensation on account of loss of income during the period for which appellant-claimant had remained under treatment.

¶43

Unfortunately, in the present case, records were burnt in a fire incident and no material is available on record except for the partially burnt award. Perusal of paragraph No.19 of the impugned award goes to show that learned Tribunal has duly taken into consideration medicine bills Ex.A-76 to Ex.A-179 and after taking said bills which were duly produced by the appellant-claimant on record had granted Rs.50,000/- for medical expenses etc.

¶44

In absence of medical record and bills, I do not find any reasons to enhance compensation under this head, especially when learned Tribunal has already taken into consideration all the medical bills Ex.A-76 to Ex.A179 while granting compensation under this head.

¶45

Learned counsel for the appellant-claimant has failed to show that appellant-claimant had spent more on medical expenses than what was

¶46

RAVINDER DHANIA 2026.07.10 13:03 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶47

FAO-2316-2004 FAO-2318-2004

¶48

-6-

¶49

granted by learned Tribunal. However, keeping in view admission of appellant – claimant in the hospital for 15 days, it is clearly made out that the amount of compensation under head pain and sufferings is totally insufficient and it requires enhancement. Accordingly, amount of Rs.35,000/- is granted towards pain and sufferings. Since appellant-claimant had remained admitted in hospital for 15 days and must have gone treatment for some time. Therefore, taking her to be unskilled worker loss of income is determined as Rs.4,000/- (Rs.2,000x2) as appellant-claimant must have remained out of job for at least two months, keeping in view period of admission in hospital. Accordingly, appellant-claimant shall be entitled to total compensation of Rs.89,000/- instead of Rs.57,000/- as granted by learned Tribunal.

¶50

Appellant-claimant shall be entitled to enhanced compensation along with 7.5% interest from the date of filing of claim petition till realization of entire amount. Apportionment and liability to pay compensation shall be as per award.

¶51