257 FAO-5239-2002 (O&M) Date of decision: 14.07.2026 GURDEEP KAUR ....APPELLANT VERSUS CHAM KAUR AND ORS ...RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHVIR SINGH RATHOR Present: Ms. Geetika Rani, Advocate/Amicus Curiae for the appellant. Respondents No.4 to 6 ex parte before the Tribunal. Mr. Suvir Dewan, Advocate for respondent No.3-Insurance Company. YASHVIR SINGH RATHOR. J.(Oral) 1. This appeal has been instituted by the claimants for enhancement of compensation against the Award dated 17.12.2002 passed in MACT case No.6 decided by the MACT, Ludhiana (for short “Tribunal”) in a petition under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short ‘Act’) vide which a sum of Rs.2,54,000/- 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 Bakhshish 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 Truck bearing No.PB-04-9574 (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 learned. Tribunal:- “1. Whether Bakhshish Singh s/o Bachan Singh died in a road accident on 24.7.96 due to the rash and negligent driving of VISHAL VARDHAN 2026.07.17 16:49 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document area of R.K. Steels, Doraha? OPP. 2. Whether the claimant is entitled to compensation? If so, how much and from whom? OPP. 3. Whether the claim petition is not maintainable? OPR. 4. Whether this claim petition is bad for non-joinder and mis- joinder of parties? OPR 5. Whether the driver of the offending vehicle was not holding any valid driving licence at the time of alleged accident? OPR 6. 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.2,54,000/- as compensation to the claimants, on account of death of Bakhshish Singh along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of claim petition till realization and respondents No.1 to 3 have been held liable to pay compensation jointly and severally 5. Feeling aggrieved, the appeal in hand has been preferred. The material on file has been perused and parties have been heard. 6. In the present case, the respondents No.1 to 3 i.e. driver, owner and insurer have been held liable to pay compensation to the claimant jointly and severally and Insurance Company is represented by its counsel and as such, there is no necessity to issue notice to the driver (respondent No.1) and owner (respondent No.2) and issuance of notice to them is dispensed with. 7. 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 VISHAL VARDHAN 2026.07.17 16:49 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-5239-2002 (O&M) - 3- Tribunal in the impugned award. 8. 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. 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. 9. Learned counsel for the appellants argued that the impugned award vide which compensation of Rs.2,54,000/- 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 deceased has been assessed on lower side and the evidence led by the claimant has been ignored without assigning cogent reasons. Deceased was a driver by profession working under one Kewal Krishan and he was being paid Rs.4,800/- per month as salary which included Travel Allowance (TA) and Dearness Allowance (DA). Claimant had examined the employer who also led in evidence the salary slip but the same has been ignored and deceased has been treated as a casual labourer and his monthly income has been assessed to be Rs.2,000/- per month which is on lower side. Learned counsel next contended that future prospects 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 consortium, loss of estate and funeral expenses and he prayed that compensation be awarded under VISHAL VARDHAN 2026.07.17 16:49 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document learned counsel has relied upon Law Finder Doc ID #2850027 V. Pathmavathi and Ors. Vs. Bharthi Axa General Insurance Co. Ltd. and Anr., Law Finder Doc ID #2082054 Rajwati @ Rajjo & Ors. Vs. United India Insurance Company Ltd. & Ors., 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. 10. 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. 11. 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 punitive to the persons liable to pay compensation and that determination of compensation must be based on certain data establishing reasonable nexus VISHAL VARDHAN 2026.07.17 16:49 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 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. 12. The present claim petition has been filed by the wife while two sons and one daughter have been impleaded as proforma respondents No.4 to 6 and deceased thus left behind four dependents. Claimant Gurdeep Kaur has stepped into the witness box as PW2 and stated that her husband was 45 years of age and was working as a driver with one Kewal Krishan and was being paid Rs.4,800/- per month as salary which included TA and DA. To prove the salary of the deceased, claimant has examined PW1 Kewal Krishan with whom deceased was allegedly employed and he has also supported the version of claimant and tendered the salary certificate Ex.P1. However, the Tribunal did not rely upon the evidence led by the claimant on the ground that the claimant has failed to lead in evidence the driving licence of the deceased and that PW1 Kewal Krishan has not maintained any account regarding purchase of petrol and other allied items for his van which the deceased used to drive and he also did not maintain any account regarding the payment of salary which have also not been reflected in the Income Tax Returns by him. 13. However, the reasoning given by the Tribunal that the deceased was not a driver is erroneous. Even as per contents of FIR, deceased was driving a van when the accident took place and they were going from Amritsar to Hemkund Sahib in Maruti van bearing No.PB-02-9610. Merely because the driving licence has not been produced cannot be a ground to hold that deceased was not a driver as it is probable that the driving licence may have been lost or misplaced at the VISHAL VARDHAN 2026.07.17 16:49 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document has to be believed particularly because he was driving a Maruti van at the time of accident with the offending vehicle. 14. So far as income is concerned, the case law relied upon by learned counsel for the appellant V. Pathmavathi’s case (supra) and Rajwati @ Rajjo’s case (supra) are not applicable at all in the present case. The oral testimony of the claimant and PW1 Kewal Krishan has rightly been ignored by the ld. Tribunal. PW1 Kewal Krishan claimed that he used to pay Rs.4,800/- per month as salary to the deceased but no corresponding record has been maintained by him regarding payment of salary amounting to Rs.4,800/- and he has not even reflected the payment of salary in his own Income Tax Returns and in these circumstances, the testimony of PW1 Kewal Krishan cannot be accepted as a gospel truth. 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 status and facts and circumstances of the case. 15. In the present case, the accident in question had taken place on 24.07.1996 and deceased was employed by his employer as a driver of Maruti van VISHAL VARDHAN 2026.07.17 16:49 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document income of the deceased. In the year 1996, a person employed as a taxi driver must have been earning at least Rs.3,000/- per month. Accordingly, the income of deceased is taken as Rs.3,000/- per month as against Rs.2,000/- per month assessed by the Tribunal. 16. The Tribunal has held the age of the deceased to be 45 years as mentioned in the postmortem report Ex.P2. As such, age of the deceased was 45 years at the time of accident and 30% 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.3,900/- (Rs.3,000/- + Rs.900/-). 17. The petition in hand has been instituted by wife and three children (proforma respondents No.4 to 6) of the deceased. Accordingly, it is held that deceased has left behind 4 dependents and 1/4th of the income thus has to be deducted towards personal and living expenses. After deducting a sum of Rs.975/- towards personal expenses, the monthly loss of dependency comes out to Rs.2,925/- (Rs.3,900/- - Rs.975/-) and the annual loss of dependency comes out to Rs.35,100/-. 18. As per guidelines laid down in Sarla Verma’s case (supra), multiplier of 14 has to be applied as deceased was 45 years of age and after applying the same, the compensation comes to Rs.4,91,400/- (Rs.35,100/- X 14). 19. As per law laid down in Pranay Sethi’s case (supra), a sum of Rs.70,000/- is payable towards 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. However, the judgment in Pranay Sethi’s case (supra) was VISHAL VARDHAN 2026.07.17 16:49 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document the year 1996 when the accident took place, the claimant is held entitled to a sum of Rs.20,000/- towards loss of consortium, Rs.7,500/- for funeral expenses and Rs.7,500/- for loss of estate. Likewise, proforma respondents No.4 to 6 who are children of deceased are also held entitled to a sum of Rs.20,000/- each for loss of parental consortium. 20. Accordingly, the compensation to be awarded to the appellant/claimant is assessed as under:- S.No. Under Head Compensation assessed by this Court 1. Age of deceased 45 years 2. Monthly income of deceased Rs.3,000/- per month 3. Future prospects @ 30% Rs.900/- 4. Total income Rs.3,900/- per month 5. Number of dependents 4 6. Deduction towards personal expenses of the deceased (1/4th) Rs.975/- 7. Monthly loss of dependency Rs.2,925/- 8. Annual loss of dependency Rs.35,100/- (Rs.2,925/- X 12) 9. Multiplier 14 10. Compensation on account of Loss of dependency Rs.4,91,400/- 11. Compensation under conventional heads to wife Rs.35,000/- 12. Parental consortium to sons and daughter of deceased Rs.60,000/- (Rs.20,000/- X 3) Total Compensation Rs.5,86,400/- (rounded off to Rs.5,86,000/-) VISHAL VARDHAN 2026.07.17 16:49 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 21. Resultantly, the appeal in hand is partly accepted with costs and appellants/claimants are held entitled to a sum of Rs.5,86,000/- as compensation. The enhanced compensation thus comes out to Rs.3,32,000/- (Rs.5,86,000/- – Rs.2,54,000/-) over and above the compensation awarded by the Tribunal alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of claim petition i.e. 19.01.1999, till realization payable by respondents, jointly and severally. Out of the enhanced compensation, a sum of Rs.50,000/- each be paid to the children i.e. proforma respondents No.4 to 6 along with interest and remaining amount to claimant/wife along with proportionate interest. 22. 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. 23. Pending misc. application (s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. (YASHVIR SINGH RATHOR) 14.07.2026 JUDGE Vishal Vardhan Whether speaking/reasoned. : Yes/No Whether reportable. : Yes/No VISHAL VARDHAN 2026.07.17 16:49 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document