FAO-5208-2002 (O&M) - 1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 267 FAO-5208-2002 (O&M) Date of decision: 06.07.2026 HARPREET KAUR ....Appellant Versus RAMESH KUMAR ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHVIR SINGH RATHOR Present : Mr. S.K. Raghuvanshi, Advocate with Mr. Vijay Lath, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. A.K. Sangwan, Advocate with Mr. Ayushi Jain, Advocate for Mr. Pardeep Goyal, Advocate for respondent No.3. YASHVIR SINGH RATHOR. J.(Oral) 1. This appeal has been instituted by claimants against the Award dated 20.07.2002 passed in MACT case No.58 of 03.08.2000 decided by the MACT, Rupnagar (for short “Tribunal”) in a petition under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 vide which a sum of Rs.3,45,400/- has been awarded as compensation to the claimants along with interest at the rate of 9 % per annum from the date of filing of claim petition till realization on account of death of Kuldeep Singh in a motor vehicle accident. 2. From the pleadings of parties, following issues were framed:- “1. Whether Kuldip Singh died as a rash and negligent driving of car No.HR-07-D-4865 by respondent No.1 on 02.07.2000? OPP. 2. Whether respondent No.1 was not holding a valid driving licence at the time of accident? OPR-3 3. Whether the petition is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties?OPP. AMANDEEP GOSAIN 2026.07.07 14:08 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment FAO-5208-2002 (O&M) - 2- 4. Whether the claimant is entitled to compensation, if so how much and from whom?OPP. 5. Relief”. 3. Thereafter, the parties led evidence in support of their case. 4. After hearing the parties and going through the material on the file, learned Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.3,45,400/- as compensation to the claimants alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of claim petition till realization. 5. Feeling aggrieved, the appeal in hand has been preferred. The material on file has been perused and parties have been heard. 6. It is pertinent to mention that the record of the present appeal and the Tribunal has got burnt in a fire incident in the High Court Registry and the present appeal has to be decided on the basis of the facts and evidence discussed by the Tribunal in the impugned Award. 7. The only issue required to be determined in the present appeal relates to the assessment of compensation. Therefore, the entire facts regarding the manner of the accident are not required to be reproduced in detail, as the Tribunal has already held under Issue No.1 that the accident had occurred due to the rash and negligent driving on the part of respondent No.1 while driving the offending vehicle bearing No.HR-07-D-4865, owned by respondent No.2. No appeal or cross-objections have been filed by respondents, challenging the said finding and accordingly finding on issue No.1 is not required to be interfered with. 8. Learned counsel for the appellants argued that the impugned award vide which compensation of Rs.3,45,400/- has been awarded is based on conjectures and surmises and is liable to be modified and enhanced amount of AMANDEEP GOSAIN 2026.07.07 14:08 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment FAO-5208-2002 (O&M) - 3- compensation should be awarded. Learned counsel contended that income of the deceased has been assessed on lower side. Future prospects have also not been added to the monthly income of the deceased contrary to settled provisions of law. No compensation has been paid under conventional heads i.e. loss of consortium, loss of estate and funeral expenses and he prayed that compensation be awarded under all the heads and same should be suitably enhanced. In support of his contentions, learned counsel for the appellant has relied upon 2009(6) SCC 121 Sarla Verma and others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another, 2017 (16) SCC 680 National Insurance Co. Ltd Vs. Pranay Sethi and Other, 2018 (4) R.C.R. (Civil) 333 Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram alias Chuhru Ram & Others, (2021) 11 SCC 780 United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Satinder Kaur. 9. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.3 argued that the award in question is well reasoned and justified. The material on file has been appreciated in the correct perspective while assessing the compensation and no interference in the same is thus called for. 10. The term `just compensation’ has been elaborated by Hon’ble Supreme Court in 2009(1) RCR (Civil) 867 (SC), Syed Basheer Ahamed and Others Vs. Mohd. Jameel and Another, and it has been held that while assessing compensation in a motor accident claims case, the Tribunal should award compensation which appears to be just. The expression “which appears to be just” vests a wide discretion in the Tribunal in the matter of determination of compensation. Nevertheless, the wide amplitude of such power does not empower the Tribunal to determine the compensation arbitrarily, or to ignore settled AMANDEEP GOSAIN 2026.07.07 14:08 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment FAO-5208-2002 (O&M) - 4- principles relating to determination of compensation. It has been further held that although the Act is a beneficial legislation, it can neither be allowed to be used as a source of profit, nor as a windfall to the persons affected nor should it be punitive to the persons liable to pay compensation and that determination of compensation must be based on certain data establishing reasonable nexus between the loss incurred by the victim or dependents. It has been further held that misplaced sympathy, generosity and benevolence cannot be the guiding factors for determining the compensation. As such, compensation is required to be assessed by taking into consideration above-said parameters. 11. As per version of claimants, deceased was working as a driver with Jhaj Bus Services and was getting salary of Rs.5,000/- per month and besides this, he also used to sell milk and earn Rs.3,000/- per month. Learned Tribunal came to the conclusion that no record from the employer or salary certificate has been led in evidence to prove his employment with the Jhaj Bus Services as a driver and his salary to be Rs.5,000/- per month and this version was discarded. Likewise, no documentary evidence was led by the claimants to establish that deceased used to sell milk and earn an additional amount of Rs.3,000/- per month and thereafter, the Tribunal considered him to be a labourer and assessed his monthly income to be Rs.2,400/- per month. However, this Court cannot lose sight of the fact that deceased was plying a scooter at the time of accident with the offending vehicle and as such, some amount of guess work has to be applied while assessing his monthly income and he cannot be treated merely as a labourer. The accident had taken place in the year 2000 and deceased was a driver and was thus a skilled person and in such cases, the Court is required to ensure just compensation based AMANDEEP GOSAIN 2026.07.07 14:08 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment FAO-5208-2002 (O&M) - 5- on preponderance of probabilities. Where the deceased belongs to unorganized sector, strict proof of income is not mandatory and notional income can be reasonably assessed based on the social status and facts and circumstances of the case. Hon’ble Supreme Court while deciding Civil Appeal No.15021 of 2024 titled Karamjit Singh Vs. Amandeep Singh and another vide judgment dated 17.12.2024 has held that a carpenter has to be treated as a skilled person and it will be unfair to classify a carpenter as an unskilled worker. Hon’ble Supreme Court in 2019 (5) RCR (Civil) 884, Chameli Devi and others Vs. Jivrali Mian and others, has assessed the monthly income of a carpenter to be Rs.5000/- per month in the year 2001 and it was further held that in such cases where deceased is engaged in such type of profession, claimants can only lead oral evidence. 12. In the present case, the accident had taken place in the year 2000 and it can be assumed that the deceased who was a driver must be earning at least Rs.3,500/- per month while working as a driver. Learned Tribunal has thus gravely erred while assessing his monthly income to be Rs.2400/- per month, which is on lower side. Accordingly, income of deceased is taken as Rs.3,500/- per month. 13. Deceased was 27 years of age and as such, 40 % amount has to be added to the monthly income of the deceased towards future prospects in view of law laid down in Pranay Sethi’s case (supra), which takes his income to Rs.4,900/- (Rs.3,500/- + Rs.1,400/-). 14. Deceased has left behind six dependents, and as such 1/4th of the income has to be deducted towards personal and living expenses as per law laid down in Sarla Verma’s case (supra) and after deducting the same, the monthly AMANDEEP GOSAIN 2026.07.07 14:08 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment FAO-5208-2002 (O&M) - 6- loss of dependency comes out to Rs.3,675/- (Rs.4,900 − Rs.1,225) and the annual loss of dependency comes out to Rs.44,100/- (Rs.3,675 × 12). 15. Since deceased was 27 years of age, multiplier of 17 has to be applied in view of the guidelines laid down in Sarla Verma’s case (supra), and after applying the same, the total loss of dependency comes out to Rs.7,49,700/-. 16. In addition to this, claimant No.1 (wife of the deceased) is held entitled to a sum of Rs.70,000/- under conventional heads i.e. Rs.40,000/- towards loss of consortium, Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate and Rs.15,000/- on account of funeral expenses, as per law laid down in Pranay Sethi’s case (supra). Likewise, claimants No.2 to 6 are also held entitled to a sum of Rs.40,000/- each on account of loss of filial and parental consortium, in view of law laid down in Nanu Ram’s case (supra) and Satinder Kaur’s case (supra), which takes the compensation to Rs.10,19,700/-. 17. Accordingly, the compensation to be awarded to the claimants is assessed as under:- S.No. Under Head 1. Monthly income of deceased Rs.3,500/- per month 2. Age of deceased 27 years 3. Future prospects @ 40% Rs.1,400/- 4. Total income Rs.4,900/- 5. Number of dependents 6 6. Deduction towards personal expenses of the deceased Rs.1,225/- (1/4th) 7. Monthly loss of dependency Rs.3,675/- (Rs.4,900/- - Rs.1,225/-) 8. Annual loss of dependency Rs.44,100/- (Rs.3,675/- × 12) 9. Multiplier 17 10. Loss of dependency Rs.7,49,700/- (Rs.44,100/- × 17) 11. Compensation under conventional heads to claimant No.1- wife Rs.70,000/- 12. Compensation to five children (loss of filial Rs.2,00,000/- (Rs.40,000/- × 5) AMANDEEP GOSAIN 2026.07.07 14:08 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment FAO-5208-2002 (O&M) - 7- and parental consortium) 13. Total Compensation Rs.10,19,700/- 14. Interest 9% 18. Resultantly, the appeal in hand is partly accepted with costs and claimants are held entitled to a sum of Rs.10,19,700/- as compensation. The enhanced compensation thus comes out to Rs.6,74,300/- (Rs.10,19,700/- − Rs.3,45,400/-) (rounded off to Rs.6,74,000/-) over and above the compensation awarded by the Tribunal along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of claim petition i.e. 03.08.2000 till realization payable by respondents No.1 to 3 jointly and severally. Out of the enhanced compensation, a sum of Rs.50,000/- each along with proportionate interest be paid to claimants No.2 to 6 while balance amount be paid to claimant No.1 along with proportionate interest. 19. Registry is directed to email the authenticated copy of the award to the respondent Insurance Company in terms of directions issued by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Writ Petition (Civil) No.534 of 2020 titled Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Versus Union of India and others, decided on 16.03.2021 and Insurance Company shall comply with the directions as issued under Clause (F) of the said judgment. 20. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. (YASHVIR SINGH RATHOR) 06.07.2026 JUDGE amandeep Whether speaking/reasoned. : Yes/No Whether Reportable. : Yes/No AMANDEEP GOSAIN 2026.07.07 14:08 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment