FAO-2994-2002(O&M) - 1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 252 FAO-2994-2002(O&M) Date of decision: 14.07.2026 KULVINDER KAUR AND OTHERS ....Appellants VERSUS KULWANT SINGH AND OTHERS ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHVIR SINGH RATHOR Present : Mr. A.P. Bhandari, Advocate for the appellants. Mr. Neeraj Khanna, Advocate for Mr. Ravinder Arora, Advocate for respondent No.4-the Insurance Company. YASHVIR SINGH RATHOR. J.(Oral) 1. A perusal of the Award shows that the liability of respondents No.1, 2, 2A and 3 was held to be joint and several. 2. The present appeal has been filed by the claimants seeking enhancement of the compensation. Since the liability of the respondents is joint and several, there is no necessity to issue notice to the owner and the driver. 3. This appeal has been instituted by claimants against the Award dated 08.11.2001 passed in MACT case No.21 of 1999 decided by the MACT, Kaithal (for short “Tribunal”) in a petition under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 vide which a sum of Rs.2,14,000/- 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 Kewal Singh in a motor vehicle accident. PRIYANKA THAKUR 2026.07.15 19:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-2994-2002(O&M) - 2- 4. From the pleadings of parties, following issues were framed:- “1. Whether the accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving of vehicle No.PB-11G-9733 on the part of Kulwant Singh, respondent No.1 as alleged? OPP 2. If issue No.1 is proved, whether Kewal Singh died on account of injuries sustained in the accident if so whether claimants are entitled to recover any amount by way of compensation and if so to what amount and from whom? OPP 3. Whether the present petition is liable to be stayed under section 10 CPC in view of preliminary objection No.2 of respondents No.1 and 2 as alleged? OPR. 4. Whether the present petition is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties? OPR. 5. Whether the insured violated any term and condition of insurance policy, as alleged, if soto what effect? OPR (Insurance Co.) 6. Relief.” 5. Thereafter, the parties led evidence in support of their case. 6. After hearing the parties and going through the material on the file, learned Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.2,14,000/- as compensation to the claimants alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of claim petition till realization. 7. Feeling aggrieved, the appeal in hand has been preferred. The material on file has been perused and parties have been heard. 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 PRIYANKA THAKUR 2026.07.15 19:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-2994-2002(O&M) - 3- 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.PB-11G-9733, owned by respondent No.2 and 3 and insured with respondent No.4. 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.2,14,000/- 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. Future prospects have also 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.5,000/- each 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 his 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. 10. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.4-Insurance PRIYANKA THAKUR 2026.07.15 19:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-2994-2002(O&M) - 4- 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. 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 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. 12. As per version of claimants as deposed by Kulvinder Kaur wife of deceased while appearing as PW1, her husband Kewal Singh had died in a roadside accident. He was cleaner on the truck and used to get Rs.3,500/- per month as salary. Deceased was 25 years of age. The Tribunal after going through PRIYANKA THAKUR 2026.07.15 19:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-2994-2002(O&M) - 5- the material on file held that the deceased has left behind his wife, one minor child and parents. The Tribunal further held that no documentary evidence has been led to prove the income of the deceased to be Rs.3,500/- per month and relying upon minimum wages, his monthly income was assessed as Rs.1500/- per month. However, Hon'ble Supreme Court in (2022) 1 SCC 198, Chandra 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 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. As such, some amount of guess work has to be applied while assessing the income. 13. In the present case, the accident had taken place on 11.06.1999 and version of claimants that he was working as cleaner on the truck has gone unrebutted and in these circumstances, some amount of guesswork has to be applied while assessing the monthly income and the income of deceased is accordingly assessed as Rs.3,000/- per month. 14. As per voter card, the date of birth of deceased was 01.01.1998 and Tribunal has taken his age to be 30 years on the date of accident. Accordingly, 40% amount has to be added to the monthly income of the deceased towards PRIYANKA THAKUR 2026.07.15 19:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-2994-2002(O&M) - 6- 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/-). 15. Deceased has left behind three dependents i.e. wife, minor daughter and mother, who has been impleaded as respondent No.5 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.2,800/- (Rs.4,200/- – Rs.1,400/-) and the annual loss of dependency comes out to Rs.33,600/- (Rs.2,800/-- × 12). 16. Since deceased was 30 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.5,71,200- (Rs.33,600/- × 17). 17. 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 and respondent No.5 (daughter and mother of the 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.7,21,200/-. 18. Accordingly, the compensation to be awarded to the claimants is assessed as under:- PRIYANKA THAKUR 2026.07.15 19:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-2994-2002(O&M) - 7- S.No. Under Head 1. Age of deceased 30 years 2. Monthly income of deceased Rs.3,000/- per month 3. Future prospects @ 40% Rs.1,200/- 4. Total income Rs.4,200/- 5. Number of dependents 3 6. Deduction towards personal expenses of the deceased Rs.1,400/- (1/3rd) 7. Monthly loss of dependency Rs.2,800/- 8. Annual loss of dependency Rs.33,600/- (Rs.2,800/-- × 12) 9. Multiplier 17 10. Loss of dependency Rs.5,71,200- (Rs.33,600/- × 17) 11. Compensation under conventional heads to claimant No.1- wife Rs.70,000/- 12. Compensation to claimant No.2 and respondent No.5 (daughter and mother) towards parental and filial consortium Rs.80,000/- (Rs.40,000 × 2) Total Compensation Rs.7,21,200/- (rounded off to Rs.7,21,000/- Interest 9% 19. Resultantly, the appeal in hand is partly accepted with costs and claimants are held entitled to a sum of Rs.7,21,000/- as compensation. The enhanced compensation thus comes out to Rs.5,07,000/- (Rs.7,21,000/- − Rs.2,14,000/-) 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. 30.09.1999 till realization payable by respondents No.1 to 4 jointly and severally. Out of the enhanced compensation, a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- each along with proportionate interest be paid to claimant No.2 and respondent No.5 (daughter and mother of the deceased) while balance amount be paid to claimant No.1 (wife) along with proportionate interest. 20. Registry is directed to email the authenticated copy of the award to PRIYANKA THAKUR 2026.07.15 19:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-2994-2002(O&M) - 8- 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. 21. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. (YASHVIR SINGH RATHOR) 14.07.2026 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