FAO-3161-2002 (O&M) Date of decision: 15.07.2026 MRINALI BORAH AND ANOTHER ....Appellants VERSUS RAM KUMAR GUJJAR AND OTHERS ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHVIR SINGH RATHOR Present : Ms. Swati Bansal, Advocate for Mr. Vivek Suri, Advocate for the appellants. Mr. Deepak Chaudhary, Advocate for Mr. Ram Avtar, Advocate for respondent No.3-the Insurance Company. ***** YASHVIR SINGH RATHOR. J.(Oral) 1. This appeal has been instituted by claimants against the Award dated 18.02.2002 passed in MACT case No.168 of 2001 decided by the MACT, Panchkula (for short “Tribunal”) in a petition under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 vide which a sum of Rs.9,10,000/- 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 P. K. Borah in a motor vehicle accident. 2. From the pleadings of parties, following issues were framed by the learned Tribunal:- PRIYANKA THAKUR 2026.07.15 19:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document rash and negligent driving of trolla bearing no.HR-47-6658 by respondent no.1? OPP 2. If issue No.1 is proved in affirmative to what amount of compensation the claimants are entitled to and from whom? OPP 3. Whether the vehicle in question was being driven by respondent no.1 without having a valid and effective driving licence in violation of the terms and conditions of insurance policy? OPR...3. 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.9,10,000/- 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. 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-47-6658, owned by respondent No.2 and insured with respondent No.3. No appeal or cross-objections have been filed by respondents, challenging the said finding and accordingly finding on issue No.1 is not required PRIYANKA THAKUR 2026.07.15 19:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-3161-2002 (O&M) - 3- to be interfered with. 7. Learned counsel for the appellants argued that the impugned award vide which compensation of Rs.9,10,000/- 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 Future prospects have not been added to the monthly income of the deceased contrary to settled provisions of law. No compensation has been awarded under the head of loss of estate and only a sum of Rs.10,000/- has been awarded for loss of consortium and funeral expenses. Learned counsel submitted that the compensation awarded under the conventional heads is inadequate and he prayed that appropriate compensation be awarded under all the conventional heads by suitably enhancing the amount. In support of her contentions, learned counsel for the appellants 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. 8. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.3-Insurance Company 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. 9. The term `just compensation’ has been elaborated by Hon’ble Supreme Court in 2009(1) RCR (Civil) 867 (SC), Syed Basheer Ahamed and PRIYANKA THAKUR 2026.07.15 19:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 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 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 as stated by PW1 Mrinali Borah, who is one of the claimants, her husband Mr. P.K. Borah had died in the accident who was serving as Naib Subedar in the Indian Army and was posted at Ambala Cantt. He was 37 years of age and his salary was Rs.8,200/- per month. To prove his income, claimants have examined PW3 Naib Subedar Surender Singh who produced the salary record, according to which, the deceased was drawing salary of Rs.8,333/- per month. Learned Tribunal after deducting 1/3rd towards personal expenses assessed the annual dependency to be Rs.60,000/- and taking into consideration the age of the deceased to be 40 years, applied multiplier of 15 and PRIYANKA THAKUR 2026.07.15 19:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Rs.10,000/- has been awarded towards funeral expenses and loss of consortium and in all, a total compensation of Rs.9,10,000/- was assessed and awarded. The income of deceased has been correctly assessed by the Tribunal. 11. However, no future prospects have been added to the monthly income of the deceased. The Tribunal has held that the age of deceased was around 40 years. Deceased was serving in the Indian Army and was in permanent employment and as such, 50% 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.12,500/- (Rs.8,333/- + Rs.4,167/-). Out of this amount, a sum of Rs.500/- shall be deductible towards income tax and after deducting the same, the monthly income comes out to Rs.12,000/-. 12. Deceased has left behind two dependents who are his wife and son and accordingly, 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). After deducting the same, the monthly loss of dependency comes out to Rs.8,000/- (Rs.12,000/- – Rs.4,000/-) and the annual loss of dependency comes out to Rs.96,000/- (Rs.8,000/- × 12). 13. Since deceased was 40 years of age, multiplier of 15 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.14,40,000/- (Rs.96,000/- × 15). 14. 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/- PRIYANKA THAKUR 2026.07.15 19:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document account of funeral expenses, as per law laid down in Pranay Sethi’s case (supra). Likewise, claimant No.2 (son of the deceased) is also held entitled to a sum of Rs.40,000/- on account of loss of 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.15,50,000/-. 15. Accordingly, the compensation to be awarded to the claimants is assessed as under:- S.No. Under Head 1. Age of deceased 40 years 2. Monthly income of deceased Rs.8,333/- per month 3. Future prospects @ 50% Rs.4,167/- 4. Total income Rs.12,500/- 5. Income Tax deduction Rs.500/-pm 6. Total income after tax deduction Rs.12,000/- 7. Number of dependents 2 8. Deduction towards personal expenses of the deceased (1/3rd) Rs.4,000/- 9. Monthly loss of dependency Rs.8,000/- 10. Annual loss of dependency Rs.96,000/- (Rs.8,000/- × 12) 11. Multiplier 15 12. Loss of dependency Rs.14,40,000/- (Rs.96,000/- × 15) 13. Compensation under conventional heads to claimant No.1- wife Rs.70,000/- 14. Compensation to claimant No.2 (son of the deceased) towards parental consortium Rs.40,000/- Total Compensation Rs.15,50,000/- Interest 9% 16. Resultantly, the appeal in hand is partly accepted with costs and PRIYANKA THAKUR 2026.07.15 19:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document enhanced compensation thus comes out to Rs.6,40,000/- (Rs.15,50,000/- − Rs.9,10,000/-) 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. 05.02.2001 till realization payable by respondents No.1 to 3 jointly and severally. Out of the enhanced compensation, a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- along with proportionate interest be paid to claimant No.2 (son of the deceased) while balance amount be paid to claimant No.1 (wife of the deceased) along with proportionate interest. 17. 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. 18. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. (YASHVIR SINGH RATHOR) 15.07.2026 JUDGE Priyanka Thakur Whether speaking/reasoned. : Yes/No Whether Reportable. : Yes/No PRIYANKA THAKUR 2026.07.15 19:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document