FAO-6160 IN THE HIG 111 Paramjit Sin Narinder Sin CORAM: H Present: - NIDHI GUP CM-21254 1. Limitation A accompanyin 2. 3. supported by filing the pre FAO-6160 1. enhancemen Motor Acci Tribunal) vid dated 28.04. 1988. The 0 60-2023 (O&M) -1- HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HA jit Singh and others Versus er Singh and others M: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDH Mr. Kuljit Singh Bal, Advocate I GUPTA, J. 1254-CII-2023 Prayer in this application fil tion Act, 1963is for condonation of d panying appeal. Heard. For the reasons mentioned i rted by an affidavit, the same is allow the present appeal is condoned. 6160-2023 The appellant-claimants have fi cement of the compensation amount of Accident Claims Tribunal, Amri al) vide Award dated 01.05.2023, pas 28.04.2021 filed under Section 166 The 05 claimants are the: i) 57-ye D HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO-6160-2023 (O&M) Date of Decision: 27.02.2026 .…Appellants ....Respondents NIDHI GUPTA vocate for the appellants. on filed under Section 5 of the on of delay of 74 days in filing the ned in the application which is s allowed and delay of 74 days in ave filed the present appeal seeking ount of ₹19,97,800/- awarded by the Amritsar (for short-‘the learned , passed in MACP No. 59 of 2021 n 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, year-old father; ii) 30-year-old the the h is s in king the rned Act, old RISHU KATARIA 2026.02.27 20:01 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. FAO-6160 widow; iii) Gurmeet Sin 2. basis of pl deceased-Gu motor vehic and negligen 9833 (herein Singh; own respondent compensatio awarded am Award, faili per annum petition till a the compens 3. seeks enhanc upon the am petition till a the responde before the claimants sh said awarde realization o 60-2023 (O&M) -2- iii) 2 minor children; and iv)57- eet Singh, who was 30 years old at tim Brief facts of the case are that of pleadings and evidence adduce Gurmeet Singh, had died due to th vehicular accident that took place on egligent driving of Truck/Trolla beari (hereinafter ‘the offending vehicle’) ; owned by respondent No. 1-Narin dent No. 3-Insurance Company nsation as above; and directed the ed amount before the Tribunal within , failing with the claimants are entitl num on the awarded amount from n till actual realization. All the respon mpensation jointly and severally. The only ground on which the enhancement is that the learned Tribu the amount of compensation from n till actual realization. It is submitte spondents have been directed to ‘… the Tribunal within three months f ts shall also be entitled to 7.5% sim arded amount from the date of fil ion of the whole compensation amou -year-old mother of deceased- at time of accident. re that the learned Tribunal on the dduced before it concluded that e to the injuries suffered by him in a lace on 21.04.2021 due to the rash bearing registration No. PB-05-N- icle’) by respondent No.2-Satnam Narinder Singh; and insured by mpany. Ld. Tribunal awarded d the respondents to deposit the within 03 months from the date of entitled to simple interest @ 7.5% from the date of filing the claim respondents were held liable to pay ch the ld. Counsel for the claimants Tribunal has failed to grant interest from the date of filing the claim bmitted that vide impugned Award, …deposit the awarded amount hs from today, failing which the simple interest per annum on the f filing of the claim petition till mount.’ the that in a rash nam by rded the e of % laim pay ants rest laim ard, nt he he till RISHU KATARIA 2026.02.27 20:01 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. FAO-6160 4. respondents months from to simple in petition till r instance itse of claim pet relies upon vs. Bidhyad Sunil Sharm Doc Id # 250 5. have heard l merit in the s 6. the learned T claimants by judgment of Director G Finder Doc 60-2023 (O&M) -3- Learned counsel submits tha dents fail to deposit the aforesaid from the date of Award, that the clai ple interest @ 7.5% per annum from n till realization of the compensation ce itself, appellants were entitled to in im petition. In support, learned couns upon judgments of Hon’ble the Apex C dhyadhar Dutta and others, Law F Sharma and others vs. Bachitar Sin # 250664. No other argument is raised o eard learned counsel and perused the in the submissions advanced by learned It is well established position in rned Tribunal is a matter of discretion by way of entitlement. In this reg ent of the Hon’ble Supreme Court i tor General, Geological Survey of r Doc Id # 117404, the relevant para o “18. Three decisions were c Mohanty, learned counsel a appellant, in support of his co laid down in any of the decisi interest and the rate of interest of compensation as a matter o of interest must be just and re facts and circumstances of each factors including inflation, cha adopted by the Reserve Bank o its that it is only in case the resaid awarded amount within 03 he claimants have been held entitled m from the date of filing of claim sation amount. Whereas, in the first d to interest from the date of filing counsel for the appellant-claimants Apex Court in Bijoy Kumar Dugar aw Finder Doc Id # 119539; and ar Singh and others, Law Finder ised on behalf of the appellants. I the case file in detail. I find no learned counsel for appellants. ition in law that grant of interest by retion and cannot be claimed by the his regard, it is apposite to refer to ourt in Abati Bezbaruah vs. Dy. ey of India and another; Law para of which reads as under:- re cited before us by Mr. A. P. l appearing on behalf of the is contentions. No ratio has been ecisions in regard to the date of erest was awarded on the amount er of judicial discretion. The rate d reasonable depending upon the each case and taking all relevant change of economy, policy being nk of India from time to time, how the itled laim first iling ants gar and der I no t by the r to Dy. aw P. he en of nt te he nt ng ow RISHU KATARIA 2026.02.27 20:01 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. FAO-6160 7. more than ju It was the pl the accident ₹15,000/- pe the claimant the oral and of the deceas 8. deceased as Report Ex. addition of 60-2023 (O&M) -4- long the case is pending, perm victim, enormity of suffering, l enjoyment of life, etc. into cons is fixed under Section 171 of t Varying rates of interest are High Courts and the Supreme C even if claimant does not specif is consequential in the eye of for forbearance or detention of awarded to a party only for be which ought to have been paid deduced nor any rate of inte general application in motor regard to nature of provisio discretion to Tribunal in suc awarding of interest depends u mercantile usage and doctrine Civil Procedure Code nor Sec Compensation Act are applicab of interest in a claim under Courts have awarded the intere upon the facts and circumstanc my opinion, there cannot be awarding interest and the awa discretion of the Tribunal or above.” Furthermore, a perusal of the im than just and fair compensation has be the pleaded case of the claimants bef cident the deceased was working as per month. However, no docume aimants in this regard. As such, the le al and bald assertion of the claimants a deceased as ₹9000/- per month as that Further, the learned Tribunal h ed as 30 years at the time of acciden t Ex. C-1. Accordingly, the learned Tr n of 40% towards future prospects ermanent injuries suffered by the ng, loss of future income, loss of consideration. No rate of interest of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. are being awarded by Tribunals, me Court. Interest can be granted pecifically plead for the same as it of law. Interest is compensation n of money and that interest being r being kept him out of the money paid to him. No principle could be interest can be fixed to have a tor accident claim cases having ision under Section 171 giving such matter. In other matters, ds upon the statutory provisions, rine of equity. Neither Section 34, Section 4A (3) of the Workmen's licable in the matter of fixing rate der the Motor Vehicles Act. The terest at different rates depending tances of each case. Therefore, in t be any hard and fast rule in award of interest is solely on the or the High Court as indicated f the impugned Award shows that a has been awarded to the claimants. nts before the Tribunal that prior to ing as Security Guard and earning ocumentary proof was adduced by the learned Tribunal has discarded ants and taken the monthly income as that of a labourer. unal had determined the age of the ccident on the basis of Postmortem ned Tribunal had correctly made an spects; and had correctly applied he of est 8. ls, ed it on ng ey be a ng ng rs, ns, 4, n's te he ng in in he ed at a ants. r to ning by rded ome the rtem e an lied RISHU KATARIA 2026.02.27 20:01 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. FAO-6160 multiplier of rightly mad deceased. awarded claimant No and ₹15,000 amount of ₹ 9. compensatio the Act is Supreme Co a source of Another V 64043 and (2003) 7 SC just and reas but at the sa Manager, K SCC 176, th generosity a the compens 10. Kumari v. M # 421379; 02.04.2013, 60-2023 (O&M) -5- lier of 17.As there were 05 claiman made deduction of 1/4th towards ed. Under the Conventional Heads an amount of ₹40,000/- as los nt No. 2/widow of the deceased; ₹15 15,000/- towards funeral expenses an ₹19,97,800/- as compensation to t From the above facts, it is cl nsation has been awarded to the appel ct is a beneficial legislation yet, a me Court, the same cannot be allowed rce of profit. Hon’ble Supreme Cou er Vs. Jasbir Kaur & Others, Divisional Controller K.S.R.T ) 7 SCC 197, has held that the amoun d reasonable, it should neither be a b the same time it should not be a pitt ger, KSRTC Vs. Susamma Thomas the Hon’ble Supreme Court has h sity and benevolence cannot be the g mpensation. Further, the Hon’ble Supreme ri v. Madan Mohan (SC) 2013(5) Sc 379; Civil Appeal No.4646 and 2013, has held that: “Motor Vehicl laimants, the learned Tribunal had owards personal expenses of the Heads, the learned Tribunal had as loss of spousal consortium to 15,000/- towards loss of estate; ses and thereby had granted total on to the appellant-claimants. t is clear that a very just and fair appellants. No doubt Chapter-12 of yet, as cautioned by the Hon’ble llowed to be treated as a windfall or e Court in State of Haryana & thers, Law Finder Doc ID # .S.R.T.C. Vs. Mahadev Shetty’, amount of compensation should be be a bonanza nor a source of profit a pittance. In the case of General homas & Others, 1994 Volume-II t has held that misplaced sympathy, e the guiding factor for determining reme Court in the case of Reshma (5) Scale 160; Law Finder Doc ID and 4647 of 2009 decided on hicles Act, 1988, Section 168 - had the had to tate; total fair 2 of ’ble ll or & # tty’, d be rofit eral II thy, ning ma c ID on RISHU KATARIA 2026.02.27 20:01 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. FAO-6160 Section 168 Tribunal w the amount legal standa does not m compensatio obtaining un 11. appellants distinguishab 12. that merits dismissed. 13. 27.02.2026 rishu 60-2023 (O&M) -6- 168 provides that amount of compen l which appears to it to be just - The unt so determined is fair, reasonab ndards and not a forensic lottery - ot mean ‘perfect’ or ‘absolute sation principle requires examinatio g uniquely in an individual case.” The judgments relied upon ants are of no help to the claimant uishable on law and facts. In view of the discussion abov erits interference with the impug . Pending application(s) if any als 2026 Whether speaking/reasoned Whether Reportable pensation awarded by the Claims The expression, ‘just’ means that onable and equitable by accepted - Obviously ‘just compensation’ lute’ compensation - The just nation of the particular situation upon by learned counsel for the aimants as the said judgments are above, I find no case is made out impugned Award. The appeal is any also stand(s) disposed of. ( NIDHI GUPTA ) JUDGE Yes/No Yes/No ms at ed ust on the are out l is RISHU KATARIA 2026.02.27 20:01 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment.