FAO-1883 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 118 Ranjit Kaur and another Parveen Malik and others CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA Present: - NIDHI GUPTA, J. CM-7257-CII 1. Limitation Act, 1963 accompanying appeal. 2. application 1883-2023 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Ranjit Kaur and another Versus Parveen Malik and others CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA Ms. Tanajit Kaur, Advocate for Mr. Navjot Singh, Advocate for the appellants. Mr. DK Prajapati, Advocate for respondent No. 3-Insurance Co. GUPTA, J. CII-2023 Prayer in this application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 is for condonation of delay of accompanying appeal. The reasons given by the applicant/appellants in the application seeking condonation of delay of 490 days are: “2. That infact the Appellant/ Claimant being a commoner was not aware of his right to file appeal before this Hon’ble Court, it is only when he had got in touch with the undersigned counsel, he was informed t right to file the Appeal for enhancement. 3. That in fact, this Hon'ble High Court vide order dated 16.10.2019, have given liberty to the appellants to file an application before this Hon'ble Court if they have any grievance to express as su giving notice to the present appellants.” IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO-1883-2023 (O&M) Date of Decision: 20.04.2026 .…Appellants ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA Ms. Tanajit Kaur, Advocate for Mr. Navjot Singh, Advocate for the appellants. Insurance Co. Prayer in this application filed under Section 5 of the is for condonation of delay of 490 days in filing the The reasons given by the applicant/appellants in the seeking condonation of delay of 490 days are:- That infact the Appellant/ Claimant being a commoner was not aware of his right to file appeal before this Hon’ble Court, it is only when he had got in touch with the undersigned counsel, he was informed that he had the right to file the Appeal for enhancement. That in fact, this Hon'ble High Court vide order dated 16.10.2019, have given liberty to the appellants to file an application before this Hon'ble Court if they have any grievance to express as such order was passed without giving notice to the present appellants.” Prayer in this application filed under Section 5 of the days in filing the The reasons given by the applicant/appellants in the RISHU KATARIA 2026.04.23 13:28 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. FAO-1883 3. application. Liberty to file appropriate 6276-2019 vide order dated 16.10.2019. been filed on reasons do not constitute sufficient ground for condonation of extraordinary and inordinate delay of 480 days. 4. FAO-2063 1. enhancement of the compensation amount of learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Tribunal) vide impugned Award dated No. 18 dated Act, 1988. who was aged 2. basis of pleadings and evidence adduced before it, concluded that the deceased- Jaspinder Singh had died due to the injuries suffered by him in a motor vehicu and negligent driving of a Trolla bearing registration No. 9678 (for short No.1; owned by respondent No.2; and insured by respondent No. Learned Tribunal awarded the above said compensation along with interest @ 9% per annum. All the respondents were held jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation amount. 1883-2023 (O&M) -2- It is misleading statement in para application. Liberty to file appropriate application was granted in FAO 2019 vide order dated 16.10.2019. been filed on 03.02.2023 i.e. 04 years thereafter. reasons do not constitute sufficient ground for condonation of extraordinary and inordinate delay of 480 days. Hence, the present application is dismissed 2063-2025 The appellant-claimants have filed the present appeal seeking enhancement of the compensation amount of learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Tribunal) vide impugned Award dated 03.08.2019 18 dated 21.09.2018 filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles The 02 claimants are the parents of deceased Jaspinder Singh, who was aged 22 years at the time of accident. Brief facts of the case are that the learned Tribunal on the basis of pleadings and evidence adduced before it, concluded that the Jaspinder Singh had died due to the injuries suffered by him in a motor vehicular accident that took place on 31.08.2018 due to rash and negligent driving of a Trolla bearing registration No. 9678 (for short-‘the offending vehicle’) being driven by respondent No.1; owned by respondent No.2; and insured by respondent No. Tribunal awarded the above said compensation along with interest @ 9% per annum. All the respondents were held jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation amount. It is misleading statement in para No. 3 of the above said application was granted in FAO- 2019 vide order dated 16.10.2019. However, present FAO has i.e. 04 years thereafter. Thus, the above said reasons do not constitute sufficient ground for condonation of extraordinary and inordinate delay of 480 days. Hence, the present application is dismissed. claimants have filed the present appeal seeking enhancement of the compensation amount of ₹17,78,000/- awarded by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sangrur (for short-‘the learned 03.08.2019, passed in MACT Case under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles parents of deceased Jaspinder Singh, years at the time of accident. Brief facts of the case are that the learned Tribunal on the basis of pleadings and evidence adduced before it, concluded that the Jaspinder Singh had died due to the injuries suffered by him lar accident that took place on 31.08.2018 due to rash and negligent driving of a Trolla bearing registration No. HR-38-W- ) being driven by respondent No.1; owned by respondent No.2; and insured by respondent No. 3. Tribunal awarded the above said compensation along with interest @ 9% per annum. All the respondents were held jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation amount. claimants have filed the present appeal seeking awarded by the ‘the learned MACT Case under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles parents of deceased Jaspinder Singh, RISHU KATARIA 2026.04.23 13:28 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. FAO-1883 3. compensation by on the lower side as only time of accident, deceased was Faming; and was earning doing B.A. from Guru Nanak College Budhlada. Thus, income of the deceased deserves to be enhanced. 4. learned Tribunal in the compensation awarded to the appellants whic very meagre. It is contended that the appellants, who are the parents of the deceased, were fully dependent on their son and had great expectations from him. Due to his sudden demise, they had suffered irreparable loss. It is accordingly prayed that t allowed; the Award be modified and compensation be enhanced. 5. Company opposes submissions of the appellants and submits that there is no scope of enhancement of compensation a as future prospects @ 50% have already been added by learned Tribunal, whereas the same should be 40%; and deduction of 1/3 been made, whereas the same ought to have been 50% as the deceased was a bachelor. 6. Company General Insurance Company Limited vs. wherein vide order dated 16.10.2019, a Co 1883-2023 (O&M) -3- Learned counsel for the appellants seeks enhancement of compensation by submitting that income of the deceased has been taken on the lower side as only ₹8,000/- per month. time of accident, deceased was an agriculturist and and was earning ₹25,000/- per month doing B.A. from Guru Nanak College Budhlada. Thus, income of the deceased deserves to be enhanced. It is further submitted that there has been gross error by the learned Tribunal in the compensation awarded to the appellants whic very meagre. It is contended that the appellants, who are the parents of the deceased, were fully dependent on their son and had great expectations from him. Due to his sudden demise, they had suffered irreparable loss. It is accordingly prayed that t allowed; the Award be modified and compensation be enhanced. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent opposes submissions of the appellants and submits that there is no scope of enhancement of compensation a as future prospects @ 50% have already been added by learned Tribunal, whereas the same should be 40%; and deduction of 1/3 been made, whereas the same ought to have been 50% as the deceased was a bachelor. It is further pointed out that the respondent had filed an FAO-6277-2019 General Insurance Company Limited vs. wherein vide order dated 16.10.2019, a Co Learned counsel for the appellants seeks enhancement of submitting that income of the deceased has been taken per month. It is submitted that at the an agriculturist and also doing Dairy per month. The deceased was also doing B.A. from Guru Nanak College Budhlada. Thus, income of the It is further submitted that there has been gross error by the learned Tribunal in the compensation awarded to the appellants which is very meagre. It is contended that the appellants, who are the parents of the deceased, were fully dependent on their son and had great expectations from him. Due to his sudden demise, they had suffered irreparable loss. It is accordingly prayed that the present Appeal be allowed; the Award be modified and compensation be enhanced. , learned counsel for the respondent-Insurance opposes submissions of the appellants and submits that there is no scope of enhancement of compensation awarded to the appellants as future prospects @ 50% have already been added by learned Tribunal, whereas the same should be 40%; and deduction of 1/3rd has been made, whereas the same ought to have been 50% as the deceased pointed out that the respondent-Insurance 2019 titled as ‘Royal Sundram General Insurance Company Limited vs. Ranjit Kaur and others’; wherein vide order dated 16.10.2019, a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court RISHU KATARIA 2026.04.23 13:28 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. FAO-1883 had disposed of the said FAO; thereby reducing compensation amount from ₹17,78,000/ to the extent of dismissal of the present Appeal is prayed 7. appellants that vide order 16.10.2019 passed in compensation payable to the appellants had been reduced. It is, however, submitted that a review application has been filed by against the said order dated 16.10.2019 which was passed without notice to the appellants and the review application is pending. 8. heard learned c whatsoever in the submissions made on behalf of the appellants. 9. that the deceased was working and was also pursuing his studies in B.A. and was earning month. However, the record shows that the appellants were unable to prove the above said income of the deceased. No documentary qua the aforesaid record. Accordingly, learned Tribunal had taken income of the deceased as ₹8000/- out by counsel for the respondent was made by Tribunal towards personal and living expenses; whereas in view of the admitted fact that the deceased was a bachelor, deduction of 50% was required to be made. Again, addition of 50% was made 1883-2023 (O&M) -4- had disposed of the said FAO; thereby reducing compensation amount 17,78,000/- awarded to the appellants to to the extent of ₹5,38,400/- keeping in view the above said facts. Hence, dismissal of the present Appeal is prayed for. At this stage, it is admitted by learned counsel for the appellants that vide order 16.10.2019 passed in compensation payable to the appellants had been reduced. It is, however, submitted that a review application has been filed by against the said order dated 16.10.2019 which was passed without notice to the appellants and the review application is pending. No other argument is raised on behalf of the parties. I have learned counsel and perused the case f whatsoever in the submissions made on behalf of the appellants. It was the case of the appellants before the that the deceased was working an agriculturist and doing dairy farming; and was also pursuing his studies in B.A. and was earning However, the record shows that the appellants were unable to prove the above said income of the deceased. No documentary aforesaid income or avocation of the d record. Accordingly, learned Tribunal had taken income of the deceased per month and his annual income as out by counsel for the respondent-Insurance was made by Tribunal towards personal and living expenses; whereas in view of the admitted fact that the deceased was a bachelor, deduction of 50% was required to be made. Again, addition of 50% was made had disposed of the said FAO; thereby reducing compensation amount awarded to the appellants to ₹12,39,600/- i.e. reduced keeping in view the above said facts. Hence, for. At this stage, it is admitted by learned counsel for the appellants that vide order 16.10.2019 passed in FAO-6277-2019, compensation payable to the appellants had been reduced. It is, however, submitted that a review application has been filed by the appellants against the said order dated 16.10.2019 which was passed without notice to the appellants and the review application is pending. No other argument is raised on behalf of the parties. I have ounsel and perused the case file in detail. I find no merit whatsoever in the submissions made on behalf of the appellants. It was the case of the appellants before the learned Tribunal an agriculturist and doing dairy farming; and was also pursuing his studies in B.A. and was earning ₹25,000/- per However, the record shows that the appellants were unable to prove the above said income of the deceased. No documentary evidence of the deceased was brought on record. Accordingly, learned Tribunal had taken income of the deceased and his annual income as ₹96,000/-. As pointed Insurance company, deduction of 1/3rd was made by Tribunal towards personal and living expenses; whereas in view of the admitted fact that the deceased was a bachelor, deduction of 50% was required to be made. Again, addition of 50% was made RISHU KATARIA 2026.04.23 13:28 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. FAO-1883 towards future prospects, whereas as per Court in Sarla Verma Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation Doc ID # 188882, Age of the deceased was proven to be Report Ex.C multiplier of 18. A sum of affection. Further, a sum of expenses. Even if compensation under the conventional heads is alte compensation awarded to the appellants would still be in excess of what is payable as per the structured formula laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Moreover, the appellants are pursuing review application in FAO enhancement of the compensation already awarded. 10. 11. 20.04.2026 rishu 1883-2023 (O&M) -5- towards future prospects, whereas as per judgment o Sarla Verma Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation Doc ID # 188882, future prospects ought to have been added @ 40%. Age of the deceased was proven to be 21 Report Ex.C-2. Accordingly, learned Tribunal had correctly applied multiplier of 18. A sum of ₹25,000/- has been awarded towards love and affection. Further, a sum of ₹25,000/- expenses. Even if compensation under the conventional heads is alte compensation awarded to the appellants would still be in excess of what is payable as per the structured formula laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Moreover, the appellants are pursuing review application in FAO-6277-2019. Thus, no ground is made enhancement of the compensation already awarded. In view of the above, present appeal is hereby Pending application(s) if any also stand(s) disposed of. 20.04.2026 Whether speaking/reasoned Whether Reportable judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Sarla Verma Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation: Law Finder future prospects ought to have been added @ 40%. 21 years as per his Postmortem . Accordingly, learned Tribunal had correctly applied has been awarded towards love and - has been towards funeral expenses. Even if compensation under the conventional heads is altered, compensation awarded to the appellants would still be in excess of what is payable as per the structured formula laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Moreover, the appellants are pursuing review no ground is made out for enhancement of the compensation already awarded. present appeal is hereby dismissed. Pending application(s) if any also stand(s) disposed of. ( NIDHI GUPTA ) JUDGE Yes/No Yes/No RISHU KATARIA 2026.04.23 13:28 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment.