Kanta and Ors. Vs Rinku and Ors.

The present appeal has been f i led by the appellants/claimants seeking e n hancement of compensation of R s.16,28,578/- awarded by the learned M otor Accident Claims Tribunal (hereinafter referred as ‘the Tribunal’), Rewari vide Award dated 08.11.2024 passed in MACP No.453 dated 16. 9 .2021 filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (as amen d ed upto date) (hereinafter referred as ‘the Act’).

¶16

The four claimants are the 38 years old widow, 17 years old son, 14 y e ars old minor daughter and 71 years old mother of the deceased Satish, w h o was 41 years 07 months old at t h e time of accident.

¶17

Brief facts of the case are th a t the learned Tribunal on the basis of evidence and pleadings before it c oncluded that deceased Satish had died d ue to the injuries suffered by hi m in a motor vehicular accident that took p lace on 21.7.2021 due to rash an d negligent driving of the Truck bearing r egistration No.RJ-02GB-5273 ( hereinafter referred as ‘the

¶18

VIJAY ASIJA 2026.01.29 16.42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶19

2

¶20

FAO-689-2025 (O & M)

¶21

offending vehicle’) being driven by respond e nt No.1, owned by respondent No.2 and insured by respondent No.3. Th e above said compensation has been awa r ded alongwith interest @ 7.5% per annum. The respondents have bee n held jointly and severally r esponsible to pay the said compensa t ion.

¶22

Learned counsel for the appell a nts submits that the appellants had proved before the learned Tribunal tha t the deceased was working as Security Guard-cum-Chowkidar and ear n ing Rs.20,000/- per month. However, the learned Tribunal has taken the income of the deceased only Rs.9803/per month. Learned counse l for the appellants seeks enhancement of the compensation only on t he ground that consortium has been awa r ded to only claimant No.1; and no t hing has been awarded by way of filial a n d parental consortium to the claimants No.2 to 4.

¶23

Notice of motion.

¶24

Ms. Jasleen Kaur, Advocate, accepts notice on behalf of responde n t No.3-Insurance Company and o pposes the submissions made on behalf of appellants and submits that co m pensation has been awarded in accordance with law and no ground has b een made out to enhance the compensa t ion.

¶25

No other argument is made on behalf of the parties.

¶26

I have heard learned counsel f o r the parties.

¶27

I find some merits in the s u bmissions made on behalf of learned c o unsel for the appellants. It has been contended that the deceased was work i ng as Security Guard-cum-Cho w kidar and earning Rs.20,000/per mont h . However, the appellants were u nable to prove the said alleged income o f the deceased. The appellant s had produced an affidavit (Ex.PW7/ A ) and the alleged Certificate ( E x.PW4/B), however, the said

¶28

VIJAY ASIJA 2026.01.29 16.42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶29

FAO-689-2025 (O & M)

¶30

3

¶31

evidence a dduced by the appellants was no t found to be credible as it was improbab l e that the deceased merely a s a Chowkidar was earning Rs.20,000 / - per month. Moreover, PW7 a uthorized person of the firm where the deceased was stated to be work i ng, had admitted in his crossexaminati o n that the company had not issue d any authority letter to PW7 to depose before the Court. In this circumsta n ce, the Tribunal had assessed notional i ncome of the deceased as t h at of unskilled labourer as Rs.9803.2 4 /- per month (rounded of Rs.9 8 03/-) on the basis of relevant minimum wage notification.

¶32

Further, the age of the dece a sed was determined to be 41 years and 07 months on the date of acci d ent on the basis of his Post Mortem R eport (Ex.PW1/A). Accordin g ly, future prospect of 25% correctly a dded; and multiplier of 14 was a lso correctly applied. As the claimants are four in numbers, the deductio n of 1/4^th has also rightly been made. As per law laid down by Hon’bl e Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Ltd . VS. Pranay Sethi & Others ” Law Finder Doc ID # 918174 each of the claimants being LR s of the deceased are entitled to consortiu m of Rs.48,400/-.

¶33

In view of the above facts, th e appeal is partly allowed and the comp e nsation payable to the appellants is reassessed in the following

¶34

manner :-

¶35

Sr. No.	Awa Trib rded by the learned unal	Amo unt	Re-assessed compensation
1	Mon thlyIncome amount	Rs.9 803/-	Rs.9803/-
2	Futu re Prospectus 25% added	Rs.1 (980 ) 2,253/- 3/-+2450/-	Rs.12,253/- (9803/-+2450/-)
3	Tota Rs.9 x12= l Annual Income 803+Rs.2450=Rs.12253/- Rs.1,47,036/-	Rs.1 ,47,036/-	Rs.1,47,036/-
4	Inco dedu Rs.1 me after expenses ction of 1/4^th applied ,47,036-	Rs.1 ,10,277	Rs.1,10,277

¶36

VIJAY ASIJA 2026.01.29 16.42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶37

FAO-689-2025 (O & M)

¶38

4

¶39

	Rs.3 annu 6759=Rs.1,10,277/- per m
5	Amo appl Rs.1 unt calculated after ying of multiplier ,10,277x14=Rs.15,43,878/-	Rs.1 5,43,878/-	Rs.15,43,878/-
6	Loss ofdependency	Rs.1 5,43,878/-	Rs.15,43,878/-
7	Loss ofestate	Rs.1 8,150/-	Rs.18,150/-
8	Fune ral expenses	Rs.1 8,150/-	Rs.18,150/-
9	Loss claim Rs.4 of filial consortium to ants No.1 to 4 @ 8,400/-	Rs.4 8,400/-	Rs.48400/-+ (Rs.48400/- x3=Rs.1,45,200) =1,93,600/-
	Tota asp No.6 l amount of compensation er calculation of column to 9	Rs.1 6,28,578/-	Rs.17,73,778/-

¶40

Pending application(s), if any, shall stand(s) disposed of.

¶41

January 2 3 , 2026 ( NIDHI GUPTA ) Vijay Asija JUDGE Whether s p eaking/reasoned Yes / No Whether R e portable Yes / No

¶42

VIJAY ASIJA 2026.01.29 16.42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Kanta and Ors. v. Rinku and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kanta and Ors. v. Rinku and Ors.

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

Gurmanpreet Kaur Vs Amarjit Singh and Others

Ladha Ram and Ors. Vs Joginder Bai and Ors.

Karnail Singh and Ors. Vs Joginder Bai and Ors.

Managing Director the Pb. St. Co-Op. Supply and Mark. Fed. Ltd. and Anr. Vs Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal and Anr.

Mohit Chauhan Vs Mikunj Arora and Anr.

Parveen Kumari Vs Raju and Others