FAO-2147-2002(O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT (226) RAJ KUMAR AND ANR MANJEET AND ANR CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMARINDER SINGH GREWAL Present: Mr. Roopak Bansal, Advocate, AMARINDER SINGH GREWAL, J. 1. seeking enhancement of the compensation of learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sonipat ‘the Tribunal’) vide its their minor son, Jaideep Kumar, aged 13 years, who had sustained fatal injuries and succumbed thereto in a motor vehicular accident that took place on 20.12.1998 involving a tractor bearing registration No. HR which was being driven by respondent No. 1 in a rash and negligent manner. Vide the impugned finding holding that the accident had oc negligent driving of respondent No.1, and had proceeded to 2002(O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RAJ KUMAR AND ANR Versus MANJEET AND ANR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMARINDER SINGH GREWAL Mr. Sushil Jain, Advocate, for the appellant No.2. Mr. Roopak Bansal, Advocate, for the respondent No.2. *** AMARINDER SINGH GREWAL, J. The present appeal was preferred by the claimants seeking enhancement of the compensation of learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sonipat ‘the Tribunal’) vide its Award dated 03.08.2001, on account of the death of their minor son, Jaideep Kumar, aged 13 years, who had sustained fatal injuries and succumbed thereto in a motor vehicular accident that took place n 20.12.1998 involving a tractor bearing registration No. HR which was being driven by respondent No. 1 in a rash and negligent manner. Vide the impugned Award, the learned Tribunal had recorded a positive finding holding that the accident had occurred entirely due to the rash and negligent driving of respondent No.1, and had proceeded to IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO-2147-2002 (O&M) Reserved on : 21.05.2026 Pronounced on : 03.07.2026 Uploaded on : ...Appellants ... Respondents HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMARINDER SINGH GREWAL present appeal was preferred by the claimants-appellants seeking enhancement of the compensation of ₹60,000/- awarded by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sonipat (hereinafter referred to as dated 03.08.2001, on account of the death of their minor son, Jaideep Kumar, aged 13 years, who had sustained fatal injuries and succumbed thereto in a motor vehicular accident that took place n 20.12.1998 involving a tractor bearing registration No. HR-10B-3559, which was being driven by respondent No. 1 in a rash and negligent manner. , the learned Tribunal had recorded a positive curred entirely due to the rash and negligent driving of respondent No.1, and had proceeded to award the appellants ed by the (hereinafter referred to as dated 03.08.2001, on account of the death of their minor son, Jaideep Kumar, aged 13 years, who had sustained fatal injuries and succumbed thereto in a motor vehicular accident that took place 3559, which was being driven by respondent No. 1 in a rash and negligent manner. , the learned Tribunal had recorded a positive curred entirely due to the rash and the SHUBHAM 2026.07.03 17:40 I am the author of this document FAO-2147-2002(O&M) aforementioned compensation, being dissatisfied with which the appellants preferred the present appeal. 2. Tribunal, despite recording a positive finding that the fatal accident had occurred entirely due to the rash and negligent driving of respondent No. 1, erred in award ₹60,000/- vide th Tribunal completely failed to appreciate the material evidence on record, including the registration of FIR No. 559 dated 20.12.1998 under Sections 279 and 304A IPC, and instead passed the surmises, and an arbitrary reliance on a compromise offer made by respondent No. 1, which was wholly perverse and unsustainable in law. Learned counsel heavily relied upon the stellar credentials of the deceased minor, who was 13 years of age a the 5th class at the Motilal Nehru School of Sports, Rai (Sonipat). It was argued that the learned Tribunal failed to consider the exceptionally bright future prospects of the deceased child and completely overloo economic impact on the family, particularly the financial loss exceeding ₹10,000/- suffered by the father, who was forced to employ two servants at his hotel following his son’s demise. Lastly, it was urged that the learned Tribunal grossly erred i under conventional heads such as pain, suffering, and funeral expenses, while illegally restricting the interest rate to a meager 9% per annum from the date of the of the accident. To substantiate these contentions, reliance was placed upon 2002(O&M) -2- aforementioned compensation, being dissatisfied with which the appellants preferred the present appeal. Learned counsel for the appellants contend Tribunal, despite recording a positive finding that the fatal accident had occurred entirely due to the rash and negligent driving of respondent No. 1, awarding a grossly inadequate and nominal compensation of vide the impugned Award. It was submitted that the learned Tribunal completely failed to appreciate the material evidence on record, including the registration of FIR No. 559 dated 20.12.1998 under Sections 279 and 304A IPC, and instead passed the surmises, and an arbitrary reliance on a compromise offer made by respondent No. 1, which was wholly perverse and unsustainable in law. ounsel heavily relied upon the stellar credentials of the deceased minor, who was 13 years of age and a brilliant student the 5th class at the Motilal Nehru School of Sports, Rai (Sonipat). It was argued that the learned Tribunal failed to consider the exceptionally bright future prospects of the deceased child and completely overloo economic impact on the family, particularly the financial loss exceeding suffered by the father, who was forced to employ two servants at his hotel following his son’s demise. Lastly, it was urged that the learned Tribunal grossly erred in failing to grant mandatory statutory compensation under conventional heads such as pain, suffering, and funeral expenses, while illegally restricting the interest rate to a meager 9% per annum from the date of the Award instead of the claimed 18% per a of the accident. To substantiate these contentions, reliance was placed upon aforementioned compensation, being dissatisfied with which the appellants Learned counsel for the appellants contended that the learned Tribunal, despite recording a positive finding that the fatal accident had occurred entirely due to the rash and negligent driving of respondent No. 1, ing a grossly inadequate and nominal compensation of . It was submitted that the learned Tribunal completely failed to appreciate the material evidence on record, including the registration of FIR No. 559 dated 20.12.1998 under Sections 279 and 304A IPC, and instead passed the Award on mere conjectures, surmises, and an arbitrary reliance on a compromise offer made by respondent No. 1, which was wholly perverse and unsustainable in law. ounsel heavily relied upon the stellar credentials of the deceased nd a brilliant student-athlete studying in the 5th class at the Motilal Nehru School of Sports, Rai (Sonipat). It was argued that the learned Tribunal failed to consider the exceptionally bright future prospects of the deceased child and completely overlooked the economic impact on the family, particularly the financial loss exceeding suffered by the father, who was forced to employ two servants at his hotel following his son’s demise. Lastly, it was urged that the learned n failing to grant mandatory statutory compensation under conventional heads such as pain, suffering, and funeral expenses, while illegally restricting the interest rate to a meager 9% per annum from instead of the claimed 18% per annum from the date of the accident. To substantiate these contentions, reliance was placed upon aforementioned compensation, being dissatisfied with which the appellants ed that the learned Tribunal, despite recording a positive finding that the fatal accident had occurred entirely due to the rash and negligent driving of respondent No. 1, ing a grossly inadequate and nominal compensation of . It was submitted that the learned Tribunal completely failed to appreciate the material evidence on record, including the registration of FIR No. 559 dated 20.12.1998 under Sections onjectures, surmises, and an arbitrary reliance on a compromise offer made by respondent No. 1, which was wholly perverse and unsustainable in law. ounsel heavily relied upon the stellar credentials of the deceased athlete studying in the 5th class at the Motilal Nehru School of Sports, Rai (Sonipat). It was argued that the learned Tribunal failed to consider the exceptionally bright ked the economic impact on the family, particularly the financial loss exceeding suffered by the father, who was forced to employ two servants at his hotel following his son’s demise. Lastly, it was urged that the learned n failing to grant mandatory statutory compensation under conventional heads such as pain, suffering, and funeral expenses, while illegally restricting the interest rate to a meager 9% per annum from nnum from the date of the accident. To substantiate these contentions, reliance was placed upon SHUBHAM 2026.07.03 17:40 I am the author of this document FAO-2147-2002(O&M) the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Chand Mahto @ Nemchand Mahto & Ors. and Kishan Gopal and another v 276. 3. the offending tractor submitted that the impugned any interference, as it was a consent order based entirely on a volu compromise between the parties. It was argued that since the offending vehicle was admittedly uninsured, the said respondent had offered a lump sum amount of accepted in full and final sett emphasized legally estopped from challenging the quantum or seeking enhancement in the present appeal. 4. through the paper 5. the learned Tribunal shows that the claim petition was filed only against the private respondents, the offending vehic further emerges from the learned counsel appearing for the respondents had fairly conceded that the respondents, in order to satisfy the claim, had no objection to payin of ₹60,000/- The claimants, on the other hand, though reluctantly, explicitly agreed to accept this amount as compensation in full and final settlement of their 2002(O&M) -3- the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Chand Mahto @ Nemchand Mahto & Ors. Kishan Gopal and another v. Lala and others Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No. 2 the offending tractor submitted that the impugned any interference, as it was a consent order based entirely on a volu compromise between the parties. It was argued that since the offending vehicle was admittedly uninsured, the said respondent had offered a lump sum amount of ₹60,000/- out of pocket, which the claimants had consciously accepted in full and final settlement of their claim. Learned counsel that the claimants, having settled the matter voluntarily, were legally estopped from challenging the quantum or seeking enhancement in the present appeal. I have heard learned counsel for the through the paper-book with their able assistance. A perusal of the impugned Award the learned Tribunal shows that the claim petition was filed only against the private respondents, the offending vehicle admittedly not being insured. It further emerges from the Award that during the course of the proceedings, learned counsel appearing for the respondents had fairly conceded that the respondents, in order to satisfy the claim, had no objection to payin in lump sum to the claimants within a period of two months. The claimants, on the other hand, though reluctantly, explicitly agreed to accept this amount as compensation in full and final settlement of their the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Meena Devi v. Nunu Chand Mahto @ Nemchand Mahto & Ors., 2022 (4) R.C.R. (Civil) 553 . Lala and others, 2013 (4) R.C.R. (Civil) , learned counsel for respondent No. 2, the owner of the offending tractor submitted that the impugned Award did not warrant any interference, as it was a consent order based entirely on a voluntary compromise between the parties. It was argued that since the offending vehicle was admittedly uninsured, the said respondent had offered a lump- out of pocket, which the claimants had consciously lement of their claim. Learned counsel lastly that the claimants, having settled the matter voluntarily, were legally estopped from challenging the quantum or seeking enhancement in I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone book with their able assistance. Award dated 03.08.2001 passed by the learned Tribunal shows that the claim petition was filed only against the le admittedly not being insured. It that during the course of the proceedings, learned counsel appearing for the respondents had fairly conceded that the respondents, in order to satisfy the claim, had no objection to paying a sum in lump sum to the claimants within a period of two months. The claimants, on the other hand, though reluctantly, explicitly agreed to accept this amount as compensation in full and final settlement of their Meena Devi v. Nunu , 2022 (4) R.C.R. (Civil) 553 , 2013 (4) R.C.R. (Civil) the owner of did not warrant ntary compromise between the parties. It was argued that since the offending - out of pocket, which the claimants had consciously lastly that the claimants, having settled the matter voluntarily, were legally estopped from challenging the quantum or seeking enhancement in parties and have gone dated 03.08.2001 passed by the learned Tribunal shows that the claim petition was filed only against the le admittedly not being insured. It that during the course of the proceedings, learned counsel appearing for the respondents had fairly conceded that the g a sum in lump sum to the claimants within a period of two months. The claimants, on the other hand, though reluctantly, explicitly agreed to accept this amount as compensation in full and final settlement of their SHUBHAM 2026.07.03 17:40 I am the author of this document FAO-2147-2002(O&M) claim. It was on the basis parties, coupled with the fact that the offending vehicle lacked insurance coverage, that the learned Tribunal proceeded to petition and award 6. the learned Tribunal to accept a lump and final settlement of their claims against the uninsured private owners, and the Award now be permitted to turn around and seek enhancement of the very same compensation in the present appeal. Significantly, nothing has been brought on record to demonstrate that the said settlement was involuntary or stood vitiated on any legally sustainable ground. Even otherwise, the subsequent order dated 16.11.2015 passed in the Lok Adalat proceedings also facie underscores that the parties had agreed to pay and accept compensation to the tune of insurance company, no further enhancement or settlement was possible. In the considered opinion of this Court, once the quantum of compensation stood settled before the learned Tribunal and the founded upon such mutual settlement, no ground is made out for interference in appellate jurisdiction merely for the enhancement of the amount so accepted. The appellants, having consented to the quantum before the learned Tribunal, cannot be allowed to approb accepting the by way of the present appeal. The precedents relied upon by the appellants cannot come to their rescue as those cases do not arise out of a binding 2002(O&M) -4- claim. It was on the basis of this consensus and concession between the parties, coupled with the fact that the offending vehicle lacked insurance coverage, that the learned Tribunal proceeded to award the agreed sum of ₹60,000/ Once the claimants themselves had consciously agreed before the learned Tribunal to accept a lump-sum compensation of and final settlement of their claims against the uninsured private owners, and came to be passed on the strength of suc now be permitted to turn around and seek enhancement of the very same compensation in the present appeal. Significantly, nothing has been brought on record to demonstrate that the said settlement was involuntary or stood any legally sustainable ground. Even otherwise, the subsequent order dated 16.11.2015 passed in the Lok Adalat proceedings also underscores that the parties had agreed to pay and accept compensation to the tune of ₹60,000/- and, in the absolute insurance company, no further enhancement or settlement was possible. In the considered opinion of this Court, once the quantum of compensation stood settled before the learned Tribunal and the ded upon such mutual settlement, no ground is made out for interference in appellate jurisdiction merely for the enhancement of the amount so accepted. The appellants, having consented to the quantum before the learned Tribunal, cannot be allowed to approb accepting the Award on agreed terms and thereafter questioning the same by way of the present appeal. The precedents relied upon by the appellants cannot come to their rescue as those cases do not arise out of a binding of this consensus and concession between the parties, coupled with the fact that the offending vehicle lacked insurance coverage, that the learned Tribunal proceeded to dispose of the claim ₹60,000/-. aimants themselves had consciously agreed before sum compensation of ₹60,000/- in full and final settlement of their claims against the uninsured private owners, and came to be passed on the strength of such consent, they cannot now be permitted to turn around and seek enhancement of the very same compensation in the present appeal. Significantly, nothing has been brought on record to demonstrate that the said settlement was involuntary or stood any legally sustainable ground. Even otherwise, the subsequent order dated 16.11.2015 passed in the Lok Adalat proceedings also prima underscores that the parties had agreed to pay and accept compensation and, in the absolute absence of any liability of an insurance company, no further enhancement or settlement was possible. In the considered opinion of this Court, once the quantum of compensation stood settled before the learned Tribunal and the Award itself came to be ded upon such mutual settlement, no ground is made out for interference in appellate jurisdiction merely for the enhancement of the amount so accepted. The appellants, having consented to the quantum before the learned Tribunal, cannot be allowed to approbate and reprobate by on agreed terms and thereafter questioning the same by way of the present appeal. The precedents relied upon by the appellants cannot come to their rescue as those cases do not arise out of a binding of this consensus and concession between the parties, coupled with the fact that the offending vehicle lacked insurance dispose of the claim aimants themselves had consciously agreed before in full and final settlement of their claims against the uninsured private owners, and h consent, they cannot now be permitted to turn around and seek enhancement of the very same compensation in the present appeal. Significantly, nothing has been brought on record to demonstrate that the said settlement was involuntary or stood any legally sustainable ground. Even otherwise, the subsequent prima underscores that the parties had agreed to pay and accept compensation absence of any liability of an insurance company, no further enhancement or settlement was possible. In the considered opinion of this Court, once the quantum of compensation itself came to be ded upon such mutual settlement, no ground is made out for interference in appellate jurisdiction merely for the enhancement of the amount so accepted. The appellants, having consented to the quantum before ate and reprobate by on agreed terms and thereafter questioning the same by way of the present appeal. The precedents relied upon by the appellants cannot come to their rescue as those cases do not arise out of a binding SHUBHAM 2026.07.03 17:40 I am the author of this document FAO-2147-2002(O&M) consent order individuals. Consequently, finding no merit in the present appeal, the same is dismissed. 7. of. No order as to costs. July 03,2026 Shubham/ Vibhakti 2002(O&M) -5- consent order passed on a full and final settlement between private individuals. Consequently, finding no merit in the present appeal, the same All pending miscellaneous applications, if any, stand disposed of. No order as to costs. (AMARIND 2026 Vibhakti Whether speaking/reasoned Whether reportable passed on a full and final settlement between private individuals. Consequently, finding no merit in the present appeal, the same All pending miscellaneous applications, if any, stand disposed AMARINDER SINGH GREWAL) JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No : Yes/No passed on a full and final settlement between private individuals. Consequently, finding no merit in the present appeal, the same All pending miscellaneous applications, if any, stand disposed SHUBHAM 2026.07.03 17:40 I am the author of this document