Iffco Tokio General Insurance Co. Ltd vs Mukesh And Others

FAO-5439-2026 :1:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
FAO-5439-2026 (O&M)
RESERVED ON:14.10.2026
PRONOUNCED ON:31.10.2026
UPLOADED ON: 31.10.2026
IFFCO TOKIO GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD
...... Appellant
VERSUS
MUKESH AND OTHERS
...... Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPINDER SINGH NALWA
*
Present :- Ms. Shazia K Singh, Advocate and
Mr. Vikrant Sharma, Advocate
for the appellant.
Mr. Rajesh Goyal, Advocate
for the caveator/respondent.
*
Deepinder Singh Nalwa, J.
1. The present appeal has been filed by the Insurance Company for
setting aside/modification of the award dated 16.07.2026 passed by the
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Panipat (hereinafter referred to as 'the
Tribunal'), whereby the claim petition filed by respondents No.1 and 2-
claimants has been allowed and respondents No.1 and 2-claimants have been
held entitled for compensation of an amount of Rs.29,47,000/- along with
interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of claim petition till actual
realization.
RIMPAL RANI
2026.10.31 15:57
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

FAO-5439-2026 :2:
2. Brief facts of the case are that on 21.02.2024, at about 5. p.m,
near Mahendra Agency, Bajeka Road, Sirsa, Mukesh was present at the bus
stop along with his son, Yash, while waiting for a bus to return to their
house. A Swift Dzire Car bearing registration No.HR-24R-2517
(hereinafter referred to as 'the offending vehicle'), being driven at a high
speed and in a rash and negligent manner, came from the Fatehabad side
and hit Yash, who became unconscious on sustaining multiple injuries.
Mukesh noted down the registration number of the offending vehicle. The
driver did not stop the vehicle and in fact ran away from the spot. Mukesh
shifted his son Yash to Government Hospital, Sirsa, from where he was
shifted to Jindal Hospital, Hisar. However, Yash succumbed to the injuries
sustained in the accident on 22.02.2024. An FIR No.37 dated 23.02.2024
was registered under Sections 279 and 304-A IPC at Police Station Ding,
District Sirsa, in regard to the said accident.
3. As Yash (since deceased) died on account of rash and negligent
driving of the driver of the offending vehicle, the parents of Yash (since
deceased) filed a claim petition before the Tribunal, claiming a
compensation of Rs.15 lacs. The driver and owner of the offending vehicle
filed a joint written statement, denying that any accident involving the
offending vehicle took place on 21.02.2024. They further pleaded that the
offending vehicle was duly insured by the Insurance Company who is liable
to pay the compensation, if any. The Insurance Company duly filed a
separate written statement, denying the occurrence of the accident and
pleaded that the offending vehicle was being driven in violation of the terms
RIMPAL RANI
2026.10.31 15:57
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

FAO-5439-2026 :3:
and conditions of the insurance policy and as such, the Insurance Company
was not liable to pay any compensation to the claimants.
4. The Tribunal, vide award dated 16.07.2026, allowed the claim
petition and awarded compensation of an amount of Rs.29.47 lacs to the
claimants on account of the death of Yash (since deceased), payable jointly
and severally by the driver, owner and Insurance Company. The Tribunal
further awarded interest at the rate of 6% per annum on the compensation
from the date of filing of the claim petition till its realization. Though the
first charge was to remain with the respondent-Insurance Company. The
above said amount of compensation was to be apportioned equally between
the claimants.
5. A perusal of the award dated 16.07.2026 passed by the Tribunal
would show that the Tribunal assessed the monthly income of Yash (since
deceased) at Rs.18,500.81 paise, relying upon the notification dated
22.02.2024 issued by the Government of Haryana, purportedly applicable
w.e.f. 01.01.2024.
6. Aggrieved against the award 16.07.2026 passed by the Tribunal,
the Insurance Company has filed the present appeal.
7. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant-Insurance
Company submits that a perusal of the award dated 16.07.2026 passed by
the Tribunal would show that the monthly income of Yash (since deceased)
was assessed at Rs.18,500.81 paise on the basis of the notification dated
22.02.2024 issued by the Government of Haryana as applicable to the
respective District where the accident took place. Learned counsel submits
that as per the aforesaid notification dated 22.02.2024 issued by the
RIMPAL RANI
2026.10.31 15:57
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

FAO-5439-2026 :4:
Government of Haryana, the minimum monthly wages fixed for a skilled
employee/worker was Rs.12,646.1 2/- as such, the monthly income of Yash
(since deceased) should be taken as Rs.12,646.12/- instead of Rs.18,500.81
paise, and that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is liable to be
reduced and reassessed accordingly.
8. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents No.1
and 2-claimants does not dispute the minimum wages of Rs.12,646.12/-
fixed for a skilled employee/worker under the aforesaid notification issued
by the Government of Haryana. However, learned counsel submits that even
if, for the sake of arguments it is presumed that the monthly income of Yash
(since deceased) cannot be taken as Rs.18,500.81, even then the DC rates
fixed by the Government of Haryana should be taken into consideration for
the purpose of grant of compensation. Learned counsel submits that DC rate
for a skilled worker fixed at the time of accident was approximately
Rs.18,000/- per month.
9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through
the case file with their able assistance.
10. It is not in dispute that at the time of accident, as per the
notification dated 22.02.2024 issued by the Government of Haryana, the
minimum wages fixed in case of a skilled employee/worker was
Rs.12,646.12/- per month. It is well settled law that in case of a Motor
Accident Claim involving minor, the minimum wages applicable to the
skilled worker/labourer at the time of accident should be taken into
consideration for the purpose of income.
RIMPAL RANI
2026.10.31 15:57
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

FAO-5439-2026 :5:
11. Reliance is placed upon the judgment passed by Hon'ble the
Supreme Court of India in Hitesh Nagjibhai Patel Vs. Bababhai Nagjibhai
Rabari and another, 2025 SCC Online SC 3446 . The relevant extract of the
judgment is reproduced hereunder:-
“9. On the aspect of monthly income of the minor appellant, we are
inclined to interfere with the judgment and order of the Courts below. In
the present case, it is evident that the Courts below have failed to take into
account the monthly income of the appellant while determining the
quantum of compensation. It is now a wellentrenched and consistently
reiterated principle of law that a minor child who suffers death or
permanent disability in a motor vehicle accident, cannot be placed in the
same category as a non-earning individual for the purposes of assessing
the amount of compensation because the child was not engaged in gainful
employment at the time of the accident. In such a case, the computation of
compensation under the head of loss of income ought to be made by
adopting, at the very least, the minimum wages payable to a skilled
workman as notified for the relevant period in the respective State where
the cause of action arises. The said observation was rendered by this
Court, in Kajal v. Jagdish Chand and Ors., (2020) 4 SCC 413 , and Baby
Sakshi Greola v. Manzoor Ahmad Simon and Anr., 2024 SCC Online SC
3692 .
10. Adverting to the facts at hand, the appellant was an 8- year-old
child at the time of the accident. In view of the above exposition of law, we
must advert to the prevailing minimum wages, which for the skilled ones,
as in the year of accident, i.e., 2012, in Gujarat would be Rs.227.85p. per
day, therefore, in the interest of justice, we deem it appropriate to
determine the income of the appellant as Rs.6,835.5p. per month, rounding
off to Rs.6,836/- per month.”
12. In regard to the contention raised by learned counsel appearing
on behalf of the respondents No.1 and 2-claimants that the DC rates fixed by
the Deputy Commissioner should be taken into consideration for the purpose
of income for compensation under the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 is
RIMPAL RANI
2026.10.31 15:57
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

FAO-5439-2026 :6:
concerned, the DC rates fixed by the Deputy Commissioner cannot be
applied generally in all cases. The DC rates fixed by the Deputy
Commissioner generally applies in the Government
institutions/establishments. Reliance is placed upon judgments passed by the
Co-ordinate Benches of this Court titled as New India Assurance Co. Ltd.
Vs. Smt. Surti Devi and others, FAO No.3239 of 2016, decided on
29.05.2018; United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Smt. Neelam and others,
FAO No.4712 of 2015, decided on 21.09.2018; United India Insurance Co.
Ltd. Vs. Poonam and others, FAO No.4043 of 2018, decided on 09.05.2019
and Shri Ram General Insurance Company Ltd. and others Vs. Beant
Kaur and others along with other connected matters, 2019 (3) SCT 684 . In
the abovereferred judgments of the Co-ordinate Benches of this Court, it has
been held that there are no specific or set principles or guidelines for fixation
of the DC rates as specifically provided under the Minimum Wages Act,
1948, DC rates have no statutory basis or sanction and these rates are
dependent upon a number of local factors which necessarily differ from
District to District.
13. In view of the above and taking into consideration of the facts
of the case, the contention raised by learned counsel appearing on behalf of
the respondents No.1 and 2-claimants that the DC rates should be taken into
consideration while calculating the compensation to be awarded in the case
of a minor cannot be accepted.
14. Taking into consideration the above said facts and the judgment
referred above, the notional income of Yash (since deceased) is to be taken
as Rs.12,646 per month (rounded off) and as such, the compensation
RIMPAL RANI
2026.10.31 15:57
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

FAO-5439-2026 :7:
awarded by the Tribunal needs to be reassessed. Accordingly, the
compensation is re-computed as under:-
Assessment
Date of Accident 21.02.2024
Age of deceased 07 years
Claimants Parents
1. Annual Income Rs.1,51,752/-
(Rs.12646/- per month)
2. Future prospects @ 40% Rs.2,12,452/-
Rs.1,51,752/- + Rs.60,700/-
3. Deduction for personal and living expenses Rs.1,06,226/-
50%
4. Multiplier 18
5. Total loss of dependency Rs.19,12,068/-
Rs.1,06,226/- X 18
6. Loss of Estate Rs.18,150/-
7. Funeral Expenses Rs.18,150/-
8. Loss of consortium Rs.96,800/-
Rs.48,400/- X 2
9. Amount awarded by Tribunal Rs.29,47,000/-
10. Modified/Reduced amount Rs.9,01,832/-
11. Final modified compensation Rs.20,45,168/-
15. In view of above, the award passed by the Tribunal is modified
to the extent that the respondents No.1 and 2-claimants are held entitled for
grant of final modified compensation of an amount of Rs.20,45,168/-, in
equal shares, as apportioned by the Tribunal.
16. The appellant-Insurance company alongwith respondents No.3
and 4 i.e. driver and owner of the offending vehicle, are directed to deposit
the modified/reduced compensation of Rs.20,45,168/- jointly and severally
with the Tribunal, along with interest @ 6% per annum, as awarded by the
RIMPAL RANI
2026.10.31 15:57
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

FAO-5439-2026 :8:
Tribunal, from the date of filing of the claim petition till actual realization,
within a period of two months from the date of passing of this judgment.
17. The Tribunal is further directed to disburse the final modified
amount of compensation along with interest in the bank accounts of
respondents No.1 and 2-claimants. The respondents No.1 and 2-claimants
are directed to furnish their respective bank account details to the Tribunal.
18. In view of above, the present appeal is allowed in above said
terms.
19. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand(s) disposed of
accordingly.
(DEEPINDER SINGH NALWA)
JUDGE

31.10.2026
Rimpal
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether Reportable : Yes/No
RIMPAL RANI
2026.10.31 15:57
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document