274 FAO-2775-2002 (O&M) Date of decision: 13.07.2026 MONICA AND ORS. ....APPELLANTS VERSUS VIJAY LAL AND ORS. ...RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHVIR SINGH RATHOR Present : Mr. Jitender Dhanda, Advocate for the appellants. Mr. Vinod Gupta, Advocate for respondent No.3-Insurance Company. YASHVIR SINGH RATHOR. J.(Oral) 1. This appeal has been instituted by claimants against the Award dated 29.08.2001 passed in MACT case No.32 of 2000 decided by the MACT, Hisar (for short “Tribunal”) for enhancement of compensation in a petition under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 vide which a sum of Rs.3,25,000/- has been awarded as compensation to the claimants alongwith interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of claim petition till realization on account of death of Joginder @ Yoginder in a motor vehicular accident which took place due to rash and negligent driving on the part of respondent No.1 while driving the offending vehicle bearing No.RJ-01-G-2840 (for short ‘offending vehicle’), owned by respondent No.2, which was insured with respondent No.3. 2. From the pleadings of parties, following issues were framed by the ld. Tribunal:- “1. Whether accident in question took place due to rash and negligent driving of truck No.RJ-01-G-2840 by respondent No.1 Vijay Lal? OPP. 2. Whether the applicants are entitled to any compensation on VISHAL VARDHAN 2026.07.14 18:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document and from whom? OPP” 3. Whether the Insurance Company is liable to make the payment of compensation, if awarded or not? OPR 4. 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.3,25,000/- as compensation to the claimants, on account of death of Joginder @ Yoginder along with 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. 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 occurred due to the rash and negligent driving on the part of respondent No.1 while driving offending vehicle, owned by respondent No.2 and insured with respondent No.3 and they have been held liable to pay compensation jointly and severally. 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. 7. Learned counsel for the appellants argued that the impugned award vide which compensation of Rs.3,25,000/- has been awarded is based on conjectures and surmises and is liable to be modified and enhanced amount of compensation should be awarded. Learned counsel contended that income of the VISHAL VARDHAN 2026.07.14 18:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 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 compensation of Rs.5,000/- awarded under the head of funeral expenses is on lower side and he prayed that compensation be awarded under all the heads and same be suitably enhanced. In support of his contentions, learned counsel 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 and (2021) 11 SCC 780, United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Satinder Kaur. 8. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent argued that the adequate compensation has been awarded by the learned Tribunal and no interference in the said award is called for and appeal in hand be dismissed. 9. 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 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 VISHAL VARDHAN 2026.07.14 18:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 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. 10. As per version of claimants, deceased was 29 years of age and he used to deal in the sale and purchase of old cars and earn Rs.10,000/- per month. Learned Tribunal came to the conclusion that the claimants have not led any cogent and convincing evidence in this regard and assessed monthly income of deceased to be Rs.2,500/- per month and accepted the version of PW3 Jaidevi only to the extent that he was dealing in sale and purchase of old cars. Hon’ble Supreme Court in (2022) 1 SCC 198, Chander alias Chander alias Chanda Ram and another Vs.Mukesh Kumar Yadav, decided vide judgment dated 01.10.2021 has held that merely because claimants are unable to produce documentary evidence to show the monthly income of the deceased is not a ground to discard the oral evidence and in such cases, the Court is required to ensure just compensation based on preponderance of probabilities. Minimum wage notification may serve as a yardstick but cannot be the sole basis for assessing the income. Moreover, it is also well settled that where the victim/deceased belongs to unorganized, 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. 11. In the present case, the accident had taken place in the year 2000 and it can be assumed that the deceased must have been earning at least Rs.4,000/- per VISHAL VARDHAN 2026.07.14 18:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document thus gravely erred while assessing his income to be Rs.2,500/- per month, which is on lower side. Accordingly, income of deceased is taken as Rs.4,000/- per month. 12. The Tribunal has held the age of the deceased to be 35 years as per the postmortem report Ex.P3 and relied upon the age mentioned in the postmortem report. As such, age of the deceased was 35 years at the time of accident and 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.5,600/- (Rs.4,000/- + Rs.1,600/-). 13. Deceased has left behind 3 dependents i.e. his mother and two children and as such, 1/3rd 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 loss of dependency comes out to Rs.3,734/- (Rs.5,600 − Rs.1,866/-) and the annual loss of dependency comes out to Rs.44,808/- (Rs.3,734 × 12). 14. Since deceased was 35 years of age, multiplier of 16 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.7,16,928/-. 15. In addition to this, claimant No.3 (mother of the deceased) is held entitled to a sum of Rs.70,000/- under conventional heads i.e. Rs.40,000/- towards loss of filial 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.1 & 2 who are children of deceased are also held entitled to a sum of Rs.40,000/- each on account of loss of parental consortium, in view of law laid down in Nanu Ram’s case (supra) and Satinder Kaur’s case VISHAL VARDHAN 2026.07.14 18:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 16. Accordingly, the compensation to be awarded to the appellants/claimants is assessed as under:- S.No. Under Head Compensation Assessed by this Court 1. Age of deceased 35 years 2. Monthly income of deceased Rs.4,000/- per month 3. Future prospects @ 40% Rs.1,600/- 4. Total income Rs.5,600/- 5. Number of dependents 3 6. Deduction towards personal expenses of the deceased (1/3rd) Rs.1,866/- 7. Monthly loss of dependency Rs.3,734/- (Rs.5,600/- - Rs.1,866/-) 8. Annual loss of dependency Rs.44,808/- (Rs.3,734/- × 12) 9. Multiplier 16 10. Loss of dependency Rs.7,16,928/- (Rs.44,808/- × 16) 11. Compensation under conventional heads to claimant No.1- mother Rs.70,000/- 12. Parental consortium to two children Rs.80,000/- (Rs.40,000/- × 2) Total Compensation Rs.8,66,928/- (Rounded off to Rs.8,67,000/-) Interest 9% 17. Resultantly, the appeal in hand is partly accepted with costs and appellants/claimants are held entitled to a sum of Rs.8,67,000/- as compensation. The enhanced compensation thus comes out to Rs.5,42,000/- (Rs.8,67,000 /- - Rs.3,25,000/-) over and above the compensation awarded by the Tribunal alongwith interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of claim petition i.e. 24.04.2000, till realization payable by respondents, jointly and severally. Out of the enhanced compensation, a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- be paid to VISHAL VARDHAN 2026.07.14 18:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document to two children along with interest. 18. 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. 19. Pending misc. application (s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. (YASHVIR SINGH RATHOR) 13.07.2026 JUDGE Vishal Vardhan Whether speaking/reasoned. : Yes/No Whether reportable. : Yes/No VISHAL VARDHAN 2026.07.14 18:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document