IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH

244 FAO-3791-2019 (O&M)

Date of Decision : 16.05.2025

GURPREET KAUR AND ORS .... Appellants

VERSUS

MALKIT SINGH AND ANR .... Respondents

CORAM : HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE ALKA SARIN

Present : Mr. Yogesh Gupta, Advocate

for the appellants.

Mr. Vijay Lath, Advocate

for respondent No.1.

Mr. Punit Jain, Advocate

for respondent No.2.

ALKA SARIN, J. (ORAL)

1. The present appeal has been preferred by the claimant-

appellants challenging the award dated 02.03.2019 passed by the Motor

Accident Claims Tribunal, Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to as the

‘Tribunal’) aggrieved by the quantum of compensation awarded.

2. Since the factum of the accident is not in dispute, the facts, as

recorded in the impugned award passed by the Tribunal, are not being

adverted to herein for the sake of brevity.

3. The Tribunal in the present case had awarded the following

compensation :

244 FAO-3791-2019 (O&M) -2-

Sr. No. Heads Compensation Awarded

1. Monthly income ₹18,000

2. Annual income [₹18,000 x 12] = ₹2,16,000

3. Deduction @ 1/3

rd

[₹2,16,000 - ₹72,000] = ₹1,44,000

4. Future prospects @ 40% [₹1,44,000 + ₹57,600] = ₹2,01,600

5. Multiplier of ‘17’ [₹2,01,600 x 17] = ₹34,27,200

6. Funeral expenses ₹15,000

7. Loss of estate ₹15,000

8. Loss of consortium ₹40,000

Total Compensation ₹34,97,200

Interest @ 7.5% per annum

4. Learned counsel for the claimant-appellants would contend that

Kulwant Singh (since deceased) in the present case was 29 years of age at

the time of the accident and is survived by his widow, two minor children

and parents. The deceased was running three taxies which were attached to

OLA/UBER and was also running the same privately. It is further the

contention of the learned counsel that the deceased, as per Ex.P-4 i.e. the

bank account statement, was paying an EMI of ₹12,605 towards the

repayment of loan taken for purchase of the taxies. Further, as per Ex.C-22

and Ex.C-23, an amount of ₹2,542 was being paid per month towards school

fees for the education of his two children. Learned counsel has further

pointed out to the statement of the Operations Manager from UBER

Company, who stepped into the witness box as PW-3, who stated in his

cross-examination that two of the three taxies were not being plied and were

not active with UBER Cabs as the documents submitted with regard to the

same had already expired. Learned counsel would further contend that at

least one of them, at the given time, was being plied by the deceased himself

244 FAO-3791-2019 (O&M) -3-

and now even if the taxies are to be plied by the family, they would have to

hire three separate drivers for plying the taxies which means that

additionally one driver would have to be employed. Learned counsel has

relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in S. Vishnu

Ganga & Ors. V/s M/s Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. [2025 (1) RCR

(Civil) 888] to contend that merely stepping into the shoes of the deceased

would not mean that the claimant-appellants would be capable of running

the business.

5. Learned counsel for the claimant-appellants has further

contended that the deduction of 1/3

rd

has wrongly been applied by the

Tribunal, whereas it ought to have been 1/4

th

as there were five dependents

upon the deceased. It is further the contention of the learned counsel that the

amounts awarded under the head ‘loss of consortium’ and under the

conventional heads are on the lower side. In support of his contentions the

learned counsel for the claimant-appellants has relied upon the judgments of

the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of National Insurance Company

Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors. [(2017) 16 SCC 680], Magma General

Insurance Company Limited vs. Nanu Ram alias Chuhru Ram & Ors.

[(2018) 18 SCC 130] and N. Jayasree & Ors. vs. Cholamandalam M.S

General Insurance Company Ltd. [2021(4) RCR (Civil) 642].

6. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.2-Insurance

Company would contend that no income tax returns were being filed by the

deceased and hence it cannot be assumed that he was earning more than

what had been assessed by the Tribunal. It is further the contention that as

244 FAO-3791-2019 (O&M) -4-

per statement of PW-2 one of the taxies was attached with OLA and one

with UBER. Learned counsel has further referred to the statement of PW-1

(father of the deceased) to state that one of the taxies was attached with OLA

Cabs and the payment was being remitted to his account. In support of his

contentions the learned counsel for respondent No.2-Insurance Company has

relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court Shivaleela & Ors.

V/s The Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors.

[2025 SCC OnLine SC 563].

7. Heard.

8. Learned counsel for the claimant-appellants has contended that

the income of the deceased ought to have been assessed keeping in view the

fact that an amount of ₹12,605 was being paid as EMI as per Ex.P-4 and

further school fees of the minor children to the tune of ₹2,542 per month was

also being paid. It has further been contended that out of three taxies, two

were detached and hence the income of the deceased had been assessed on

the lower side. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.2-

Insurance Company has contended the income has rightly been assessed as

two of the taxies are still attached with the OLA and UBER Companies.

9. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of S. Vishnu Ganga

(supra) has held as under :

‘11. Having examined the matter, the Court finds that the

Award rendered by the Tribunal is well-considered.

Though the claimed compensation was Rs.1,00,00,000/-

(Rupees One Crore) each with regard to the father and

244 FAO-3791-2019 (O&M) -5-

the mother, the Tribunal granted Rs.58,24,000/- (Rupees

Fifty-Eight Lakhs Twenty-Four Thousand) re the father

and Rs.93,61,000/-(Rupees Ninety-Three Lakhs Sixty-

One Thousand) re the mother. The documents produced

by the appellants and the reasoning given by the Tribunal

as well as the Karnataka High Court’s Division Bench

judgment in B Parimala (supra) indicate, and in our

opinion, rightly so, that merely because the appellants

stepped into the shoes of the deceased, by such factum

itself, the appellants would not be capable of running the

Mill. It would be of relevance as to whether due to their

lack of experience and maturity, real/expected downfall

in the profitability of the firm or the business would

ensue. Such factor, while considering a claim pertaining

to loss of future income/earnings, would have to be dealt

with. In the present cases, even the monthly incomes of

the parents as claimed by the appellants i.e. income of

the father being Rs.25,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty-Five

Lakhs) per year and the mother’s being Rs.20,00,000/-

(Rupees Twenty Lakhs) per year, the notional income

fixed by the Tribunal of Rs.60,000/- (Rupees Sixty

Thousand) each per month, is much more reasonable. It

is no longer res integra that Income Tax Returns are

reliable evidence to assess the income of a deceased,

244 FAO-3791-2019 (O&M) -6-

reference whereof can be made to Amrit Bhanu Shali v

National Insurance Co. Ltd., (2012) 11 SCC 738 Para

17; Kalpanaraj v. Tamil Nadu State Transport

Corporation, (2015) 2 SCC 764 Para 7 and K Ramya

(supra) Para 14’.

Further the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Shivaleela

(supra) has held as under :

‘10. Having given our anxious thought, this Court finds

that both the MACT as also the High Court had not

correctly approached the issue. When evidence was there

before the MACT with regard to loan being advanced of

Rs.4,20,000/- (Rupees Four Lakhs Twenty Thousand) and

that of PW6, who purchased the banana crops from the

deceased, stating that the latest transaction amounted to

more than Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs) within a

few months, which could not be controverted by the

respondent-Insurance Company, coupled with the fact

that there was a tractor in the name of the family and

also evidence of PW3 to the effect that the deceased used

to supply milk, which is also reflected in the passbook of

the Milk Producer’s Cooperative Society showing

payments being made to the mother of the deceased of

Rs.6,000/- (Rupees Six Thousand) per month, the MACT

244 FAO-3791-2019 (O&M) -7-

and the High Court erred in assessing the income on the

lower side’.

Though the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case

of Shivaleela (supra) has been relied upon by the learned counsel for

respondent No.2-Insurance Company to contend that since the business is

being continued and therefore, the income assessed by the Tribunal is right,

however, the said reliance of the learned counsel on the said judgment is

wholly misplaced. Rather, the said judgment comes to the aid of the

claimant-appellants inasmuch as their Lordships have taken into account the

loan being advanced as well as the transactions for the sale of the crops and

the other sources of income.

10. In the present case it needs to be taken into account that three

taxies were being plied by the deceased. It has come in the statement of PW-

1 (father of the deceased) that the deceased used to ply one of the vehicles

himself. Even if the argument of the learned counsel for respondent No.2-

Insurance Company is to be accepted, the family, additionally, would have

to now employ a driver and the wage for a skilled worker for the year 2018

was ₹9,529 per month. The claimant-appellants have placed on record Ex.P-

4, which is the bank account statement of the deceased, to show that an

amount of ₹12,605 was being paid by him as EMI and Ex.C-22 and Ex.C-23

to show that the school fees of the children amounting to ₹2,542 per month

was also being paid by him. Merely because the claimant-appellants had

stepped into the shoes of the deceased would not necessarily mean that they

are able to run the business of taxies the way it was being run by the

244 FAO-3791-2019 (O&M) -8-

deceased. Though it has come in the statement of father of the deceased that

one of the taxies is attached to OLA and the amount is being remitted to his

account, however, that would not show that the family is earning the same

amount as the deceased was prior to his death from the said business.

11. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Gurpreet Kaur & Ors. V/s

United India Insurance Company Ltd. & Ors. [2022 (4) RCR (Civil)

826] has held as under :

‘7. We have heard learned counsel appearing on behalf

of the parties and carefully perused the material placed

on record.

8. Though, there is no evidence on record regarding the

income of deceased Pyara Singh, however, from the

testimony of P.W.4 - Amar Kumar, Assistant Manager,

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited, it is clear that the

deceased - Pyara Singh was regularly making the

payment of Rs.11,550/- as instalment to discharge his

loan liability towards the tractor. At this rate, the entire

loan was paid back within a year or so. That clearly

establishes the earning capacity of the deceased. It is

also the case of the appellants-claimants that the

deceased was working as a contractor and was earning

Rs.50,000/- per month. The Tribunal adopted a balanced

approach and keeping in view factors like : (i) the

payment of monthly instalment of Rs.11,550/- towards

244 FAO-3791-2019 (O&M) -9-

loan of the tractor; (ii) Maintaining a family comprising

of wife, two minor children and parents; (iii) Affording

tractor and motorcycle; (iv) that the deceased was

working as a contractor; assessed his income at

Rs.25,000/- per month.

9. In our considered view, the Tribunal’s approach is

quite justified in law as well as on facts. In the summary

proceedings where the approach of the Tribunal’s

determination must be in conformity with the object of

the welfare legislation, it was rightly held that the

monthly income of the deceased could not be less than

Rs.25,000/-. The reason assigned by the High Court to

reduce the monthly income of the deceased is totally

cryptic and has no rationale. The Notification of

Minimum Wages Act can be a guiding factor only in a

case where there is no clue available to evaluate monthly

income of the deceased. Where positive evidence has

been led, no reliance on the Notification could be placed,

particularly when it was nobody’s case that the deceased

was a labourer as presumed by the High Court.

10. For the reasons aforestated, we are inclined to allow

these appeals. Ordered accordingly’.

244 FAO-3791-2019 (O&M) -10-

12. Further, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Chandra @

Chanda @ Chandraram & Anr. vs. Mukesh Kumar Yadav & Ors.

[2021(4) RCR (Civil) 492] has held as under :

“10. It is the specific case of the claimants that the

deceased was possessing heavy vehicle driving licence

and was earning Rs.15000/- per month. Possessing

such licence and driving of heavy vehicle on the date of

accident is proved from the evidence on record.

Though the wife of the deceased has categorically

deposed as AW-1 that her husband Shivpal was

earning Rs.15000/- per month, same was not

considered only on the ground that salary certificate

was not filed. The Tribunal has fixed the monthly

income of the deceased by adopting minimum wage

notified for the skilled labour in the year 2016. In

absence of salary certificate the minimum wage

notification can be a yardstick but at the same time

cannot be an absolute one to fix the income of the

deceased. In absence of documentary evidence on

record some amount of guesswork is required to be

done. But at the same time the guesswork for assessing

the income of the deceased should not be totally

detached from reality. Merely because claimants were

unable to produce documentary evidence to show the

244 FAO-3791-2019 (O&M) -11-

monthly income of Shivpal, same does not justify

adoption of lowest tier of minimum wage while

computing the income. There is no reason to discard

the oral evidence of the wife of the deceased who has

deposed that late Shivpal was earning around

Rs.15000/- per month. In the case of Minu Rout & Anr.

v. Satya Pradyumna Mohapatra & Ors., (2013) 10

SCC 695 this Court while dealing with the claim

relating to an accident which occurred on 08.11.2004

has taken the salary of the driver of light motor vehicle

at Rs.6000/- per month. In this case the accident was

on 27.02.2016 and it is clearly proved that the

deceased was in possession of heavy vehicle driving

licence and was driving such vehicle on the day of

accident. Keeping in mind the enormous growth of

vehicle population and demand for good drivers and

by considering oral evidence on record we may take

the income of the deceased at Rs.8000/- per month for

the purpose of loss of dependency. Deceased was aged

about 32 years on the date of the accident and as he

was on fixed salary, 40% enhancement is to be made

towards loss of future prospects. At the same time

deduction of 1/3rd is to be made from the income of the

deceased towards his personal expenses. Accordingly

244 FAO-3791-2019 (O&M) -12-

the income of the deceased can be arrived at Rs.7467/-

per month. By applying the multiplier of '16' the

claimants are entitled for compensation of

Rs.14,33,664/-. As an amount of Rs.10,99,700/- is

already paid towards the loss of dependency the

appellant-parents are entitled for differential

compensation of Rs.3,33,964/-. Further in view of the

judgment of this Court in the case of Magma General

Insurance Company Limited v. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru

Ram & Ors., 2018 SCC OnLine SC 1546 = (2018) 18

SCC 130 the appellants are also entitled for parental

consortium of Rs.40,000/-each. The finding of the

Tribunal that parents cannot be treated as dependents

runs contrary to the judgment of this Court in the case

of Sarla Verma (Smt). & Ors. v. Delhi Transport

Corporation & Anr., (2009) 6 SCC 121. The judgment

in the case of Kirti & Anr. v. Oriental Insurance

Company Limited, (2021) 2 SCC 166 relied on by the

counsel for the respondent would not render any

assistance in support of his case having regard to facts

of the case and the evidence on record.

Keeping in view the fact that EMI was being paid to the tune of

₹12,605 and school fees to the tune of ₹2,542 per month was also being paid

by the deceased and additionally the fact that another driver would have to

244 FAO-3791-2019 (O&M) -13-

be employed as also the fact that family may not be able to run the business

as efficiently as the deceased was and may need a Manager to manage the

same, this Court deems it appropriate to apply some amount of guesswork as

held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Chandra @ Chanda @

Chandraram’s case (supra) and assess the income of the deceased as

₹25,000 per month.

13. Further, deduction of 1/3

rd

has wrongly been applied which

ought to have been 1/4

th

keeping in view the fact that there were five

dependents upon the deceased. The amounts awarded under the conventional

heads as well as under the head ‘loss of consortium’ are on the lower side.

Hence, as per the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases

of Pranay Sethi (supra), Magma General Insurance Company Limited

(supra) and N. Jayasree (supra), the claimant-appellants would be entitled to

₹18,000 (₹15,000 + 20% increase) towards loss of estate and ₹18,000

(₹15,000 + 20% increase) towards funeral expenses. The claimant-

appellants, being widow, the minor children and the parents of the deceased,

would also be entitled to ₹48,000 each (₹40,000 + 20% increase) towards

loss of consortium. Since there is no challenge to the addition of @40%

made towards future prospects and multiplier of ‘17’ as applied by the

Tribunal, the same are maintained.

14. Accordingly, the reworked compensation, to which the

claimant-appellants are entitled, is as under :

244 FAO-3791-2019 (O&M) -14-

Sr. No. Heads Compensation Awarded

1. Monthly income ₹25,000

2. Annual income [₹25,000 x 12] = ₹3,00,000

3. Deduction @ 1/4

th

[₹3,00,000 - ₹75,000] = ₹2,25,000

4. Future prospects @ 40% [₹2,25,000 + ₹90,000] = ₹3,15,000

5. Multiplier of ‘17’ [₹3,15,000 x 17] = ₹53,55,000

6. Funeral expenses ₹18,000

7. Loss of estate ₹18,000

8. Loss of consortium

i. Spousal

ii. Filial

iii. Parental

₹48,000

₹96,000 (₹48,000 x 2)

₹96,000 (₹48,000 x 2)

Total = ₹2,40,000

Total Compensation ₹56,31,000

15. The amount in excess of and over and above the amount

awarded by the Tribunal shall also attract interest @ 7.5% per annum from

the date of filing of the claim petition till the realization of the entire amount.

The amount shall be apportioned between the claimant-appellants as directed

by the Tribunal.

16. It is apt to note that the appeal being FAO-5353-2019 titled as

‘Cholamandlam MS General Insurance Company Ltd. V/s Gurpreet Kaur &

Ors.’ filed by respondent No.2-Insurance Company already stands dismissed

by this Court vide order dated 11.03.2025.

17. In view of the decision by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in

Parminder Singh vs. Honey Goyal & Ors. [2025 SCC Online SC 567],

Civil Appeal No.4299 of 2025 arising out of SLP (C) No.4484 of 2020

decided on 18.03.2025], after calculation of the enhanced amount, the same

244 FAO-3791-2019 (O&M) -15-

be transferred by respondent No.2-Insurance Company in the bank

account(s) of the claimant-appellants within a period of six weeks from

today. The compensation amount of the minor claimant-appellants No.2 and

3 shall be kept in a fixed deposit by the Bank concerned. The particulars of

the bank account(s) along with the requisite documents in support thereof

shall be furnished by the claimant-appellants to respondent No.2-Insurance

company within a period of two weeks from today and needful shall be done

by respondent No.2-Insurance Company after verification thereof within a

period of four weeks thereafter along with up-to-date interest. The

compliance shall be reported by the Bank to the Tribunal concerned.

18. In view of the above discussion, the present appeal is allowed,

and the award passed by the Tribunal is modified to the extent as stated

above. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed off.

16.05.2025 (ALKA SARIN)

Aman Jain JUDGE

NOTE: Whether speaking/non-speaking: Speaking

Whether reportable: Yes/No