163 FAO-4605-2025 Date of Decision: July 20, 2026 Raj Bala and others …Appellants Versus Akhilesh Kumar and others …Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA Present:- Mr. Amardeep Hooda, Advocate for the appellants. DEEPAK GUPTA , J.(Oral) Learned counsel for the appellants could not convince this Court that compensa on awarded to the claimants-appellants is inadequate or any of the guidelines as laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in cases of “Na onal Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi and others” 2017(4) RCR (Civil) 1009; “Sarla Verma and others v. Delhi Transport Corpora on and another”, (2009) 6 Supreme Court Cases 121; and “Magma General Insurance Company Ltd. v. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram and others”, 2018(18) SCC 130, have been breached, inasmuch as deceased was found to be 61 years of age, based upon school transfer cer ficate (Ex.P1). In the absence of any proof regarding his actual earnings, the minimum wages at the relevant me was taken into considera on. Since the deceased was 61 years of age, mul plier of 7 has been appropriately applied. Nothing was required to be added towards future prospects as per Pranay Sethi’s case (supra), since the deceased had exceeded 60 years of age. As such, finding the present appeal to be devoid of any merit, the same is hereby dismissed. July 20, 2026 (DEEPAK GUPTA) sarita JUDGE Whether reasoned/speaking: Yes/No Whether reportable: Yes/No SARITA RANI 2026.07.20 18:19 I attest to the accuracy

of this document/order

163 FAO-4605-2025 Date of Decision: July 20, 2026 Raj Bala and others …Appellants Versus Akhilesh Kumar and others …Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA Present:- Mr. Amardeep Hooda, Advocate for the appellants. DEEPAK GUPTA , J.(Oral) Learned counsel for the appellants could not convince this Court that compensa on awarded to the claimants-appellants is inadequate or any of the guidelines as laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in cases of “Na onal Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi and others” 2017(4) RCR (Civil) 1009; “Sarla Verma and others v. Delhi Transport Corpora on and another”, (2009) 6 Supreme Court Cases 121; and “Magma General Insurance Company Ltd. v. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram and others”, 2018(18) SCC 130, have been breached, inasmuch as deceased was found to be 61 years of age, based upon school transfer cer ficate (Ex.P1). In the absence of any proof regarding his actual earnings, the minimum wages at the relevant me was taken into considera on. Since the deceased was 61 years of age, mul plier of 7 has been appropriately applied. Nothing was required to be added towards future prospects as per Pranay Sethi’s case (supra), since the deceased had exceeded 60 years of age. As such, finding the present appeal to be devoid of any merit, the same is hereby dismissed. July 20, 2026 (DEEPAK GUPTA) sarita JUDGE Whether reasoned/speaking: Yes/No Whether reportable: Yes/No SARITA RANI 2026.07.20 18:19 I attest to the accuracy

of this document/order