281 FAO-5286-2002 (O&M) Date of decision: 13.07.2026 SATNAM KAUR AND ORS. ....APPELLANTS VERSUS SURINDER SINGH AND ORS. ...RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHVIR SINGH RATHOR Present: Mr. P.S. Rana, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Vipul Sharma, Advocate for respondent No.3-Insurance Company. YASHVIR SINGH RATHOR. J.(Oral) 1. This appeal has been instituted by claimants against the Award dated 31.07.2002 passed in MACT case No.52 of 2001 decided by the MACT, Kurukshetra (for short “Tribunal”) for enhancement of compensation in a petition under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 vide which a sum of Rs.2,62,000/- 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 Surjit Singh 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.PB-11-G-7724 (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 the accident in question resulting death of Surjit Singh was caused due to rash and nelgigent driving of tractor trolley No.PB-11-G-7724 on the part of respondent No.1? OPP” VISHAL VARDHAN 2026.07.14 18:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document petitioners are entitled to and from whom? OPP 3. Whether respondent No.1 was holding a valid and effective driving licence? 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.2,62,000/- as compensation to the claimants, on account of death of Surjit Singh 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 had occurred due to the rash and negligent driving on the part of respondent No.1 while driving the 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.2,62,000/- 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 have also not been added to the monthly income of the deceased contrary to settled provisions of law. Learned counsel next contended that no compensation has been paid under conventional heads i.e. loss of estate and compensation of Rs.5,000/- each has been awarded under the head of loss of consortium and funeral expenses which 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 respondents 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 VISHAL VARDHAN 2026.07.14 18:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 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. 10. As per version of claimants, deceased Surjit Singh was 27 years of age and was doing a labour work and he is survived by wife and two minor children, who are the claimants. As per version of claimants, deceased used to earn about Rs.150/- per day. However, except the oral testimony of PW1-Satnam Kaur (wife), no cogent and convincing evidence was led and learned Tribunal thus rightly discarded her testimony regarding the monthly income of the deceased. By considering him to be a labourer, the monthly income of the deceased was assessed as Rs.2,100/- per month. However, 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 VISHAL VARDHAN 2026.07.14 18:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 11. In the present case, the accident had taken place in the year 2000 and it can be assumed that the deceased must be earning at least Rs.3,000/- per month. Learned Tribunal has thus gravely erred while assessing his income to be Rs.2,100/- per month, which is on lower side. Accordingly, income of deceased is taken as Rs.3,000/- per month. 12. Deceased was 27 years of age as has also been held by the learned Tribunal 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.4,200/- (Rs.3,000/- + Rs.1,200/-) per month. 13. The petition in hand has been instituted by wife, two children, mother and father of the deceased. Hon’ble Supreme Court in 2025 Livelaw (SC) 309, Sadhana Tomar & Ors. Vs. Ashok Kushwaha & Ors, has held that a legal representative is one, who suffers on account of death of a person due to motor vehicle accident and need not necessarily be a wife, husband, parent or child. The term legal representative under Motor Vehicles Act should not be given a narrow interpretation to exclude those persons as claimants who were dependent on the deceased’s income. The father and sister, being financially dependent were legal representatives under the Act entitling them to compensation. Accordingly, it is held that deceased has left behind 5 dependents and 1/4th of the income thus has to be deducted towards personal and living expenses. After deducting a sum of Rs.1,050/- towards personal expenses, the monthly loss of dependency comes out to Rs.3,150/- (Rs.4,200/- - Rs.1,050/-) and the annual loss of dependency comes out to Rs.37,800/- (Rs.3,150/- X 12). VISHAL VARDHAN 2026.07.14 18:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document , multiplier of 17 has to be applied as deceased was 27 years of age and after applying the same, the compensation comes to Rs.6,42,600/- (Rs.37,800/- X 17). 15. 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, remaining claimants No.2 to 5 who are children and parents of deceased are also held entitled to a sum of Rs.40,000/- each on account of loss of parental and filial 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.8,72,600/-. 16. Accordingly, the compensation to be awarded to the appellants/claimants is assessed as under:- S.No. Under Head Compensation assessed by this High Court 1. Age of deceased 27 years 2. Monthly income of deceased Rs.3,000/- per month 3. Future prospects @ 40% Rs.1,200/- 4. Total income Rs.4,200/- per month 5. Number of dependents 5 6. Deduction towards personal expenses of the deceased (1/4th) Rs.1,050/- 7. Annual loss of dependency Rs.37,800/- (Rs.3,150/- X 12) 8. Multiplier 17 9. Compensation on account of Loss of dependency Rs.6,42,600/- 10. Compensation under conventional Rs.70,000/- VISHAL VARDHAN 2026.07.14 18:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 17. Resultantly, the appeal in hand is partly accepted with costs and appellants/claimants are held entitled to a sum of Rs.8,72,600/- as compensation. The enhanced compensation thus comes out to Rs.6,10,600/- (Rs.8,72,600/- - Rs.2,62,000/-) rounded off to Rs.6,11,000/- 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. 09.04.2001, till realization payable by respondents, jointly and severally. Out of the enhanced compensation, a sum of Rs.75,000/- each be paid to the children and parents of the deceased and remaining amount to claimant No.1/wife along with proportionate 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