FAO-3027-2002 (O&M) - 1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 210 FAO-3027-2002 (O&M) Date of decision: 17.07.2026 KRISHAN SHARMA AND ORS. ....Appellants Versus MANOJ KUMAR AND ORS. ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHVIR SINGH RATHOR Present : Mr. Varun Jain, Advocate for Mr. Arihant Jain, Advocate for the appellants. Respondent No.2 ex parte before the Tribunal. Mr. Sukhdev Singh, Advocate for Mr. Pardeep Goel, Advocate for respondent No.3. YASHVIR SINGH RATHOR. J.(Oral) 1. A perusal of the Award shows that respondent No.2 was already ex parte before the Tribunal and the driver, owner and insurance company have been held liable to pay compensation jointly and severally. Insurance Company is already represented by its counsel and there is thus no necessity to issue notice to respondent No.1 and issuance of notice to respondent No.1 is dispensed with. 2. This appeal has been instituted by claimants against the Award dated 15.01.2002 passed in MACT case No.136T/99/08.11.1997 by MACT, Patiala (for short “Tribunal”) in a petition under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 vide which a sum of Rs.2,97,480/- 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 Ved Parkash Jaggi in a motor vehicle accident. AMANDEEP GOSAIN 2026.07.20 17:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment FAO-3027-2002 (O&M) - 2- 3. From the pleadings of parties, following issues were framed:- “1. Whether Ved Parkash Jaggi was killed in a motor vehicle accident caused due to rash and negligent driving of Scooter No.PB- 11F-1617 by respondent No.1 Manoj Kumar on 4.1.1996? OPP 2. Whether driver of Scooter No.PB-11F/1617 was not holding valid driving licence at the time of accident? If so, its effect?OPR-3. 3. Whether the petition is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties? OPR-3 4. If issue No.1 is decided in favour of the petitioners, whether the petitioners are entitled to compensation? If yes, from whom and to what extent?OPP. 5. Relief.” 4. Thereafter, the parties led evidence in support of their case. 5. After hearing the parties and going through the material on the file, learned Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.2,97,480/- as compensation to the claimants alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of claim petition till realization. 6. Feeling aggrieved, the appeal in hand has been preferred. The material on file has been perused and parties have been heard. 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 Branch and the present appeal has to be decided on the basis of the facts and evidence discussed by the 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 AMANDEEP GOSAIN 2026.07.20 17:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment FAO-3027-2002 (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 scooter bearing No.PB-11F-1617, 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.2,97,480/- 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 the deceased was working as a Music Supervisor in the Office of District Public Relations Officer, Patiala and was earning Rs.8,000/- per month. To prove this fact, claimants examined PW2-Daljit Singh, a Clerk from the Office of District Public Relations Officer, Patiala, who tendered the salary certificate as Mark-A, which shows that at the time of his death, deceased was drawing salary of Rs.6,687/- per month. Learned counsel further contended that future prospects have not been added to the monthly income of the deceased contrary to settled provisions of law. Learned counsel next contended that the Tribunal has applied multiplier of 5 to the loss of dependency, whereas multiplier of 11 should have been applied. The compensation awarded towards loss of consortium and funeral expenses is also on the lower side and he prayed that same be suitably enhanced. 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 AMANDEEP GOSAIN 2026.07.20 17:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment FAO-3027-2002 (O&M) - 4- (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.3 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. AMANDEEP GOSAIN 2026.07.20 17:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment FAO-3027-2002 (O&M) - 5- 12. As per version of claimants, as stated by PW1-Darpan Kumar, his father was employed as Music Supervisor in the Office of District Public Relations Officer Patiala and was earning Rs.8,000/- per month. To prove his income, claimants have also examined PW2-Daljit Singh, a Clerk from the Office of District Public Relations Officer, Patiala, who tendered the salary certificate as Mark-A, which shows that he was getting salary of Rs.6,687/- per month. The Tribunal has also relied upon the said salary certificate and no evidence to prove to the contrary has been led by the respondents. Accordingly, it is held that deceased was earning Rs.6,687/- per month. 13. The Tribunal has held that deceased was 52 years of age and since he was in permanent Government employment, 15% 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.7,690/- (Rs.6,687/- + Rs.1,003/-), out of which a sum of Rs.500 has to be deducted towards income tax and after deducting the same, the monthly income comes out to Rs.7,190/-. 14. Deceased has left behind three dependents i.e. wife, son and daughter, 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.4,793/- (Rs.7,190/- – Rs.2,397/-) and the annual loss of dependency comes out to Rs.57,516/- (Rs.4,793/- × 12). 15. Since deceased was 52 years of age, multiplier of 11 has to be applied in view of the guidelines laid down in Sarla Verma’s case (supra), and AMANDEEP GOSAIN 2026.07.20 17:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment FAO-3027-2002 (O&M) - 6- after applying the same, the total loss of dependency comes out to Rs.6,32,676/- (Rs.57,516/- × 11). 16. 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 passed in the year 2017 and taking into consideration the price index prevalent in the year 1996 when the accident took place, claimant No.1 is held entitled to a sum of Rs.20,000/- towards loss of consortium, Rs.7,500/- towards funeral expenses and Rs.7,500/- for loss of estate. Likewise, claimants No.2 to 3 are also held entitled to a sum of Rs.20,000/- each towards parental consortium, which takes the total compensation to Rs.7,07,676/-. 17. Accordingly, the compensation to be awarded to the claimants is assessed as under:- S.No. Under Head 1. Age of deceased 52 years 2. Monthly income of deceased Rs.6,687/- per month 3. Future prospects @ 15% Rs.1,003/- 4. Total income Rs.7,690/- 5. Number of dependents 3 6. Deduction towards personal and living expenses of the deceased (1/3rd) Rs.2,397/- 7. Monthly loss of dependency Rs.4,793/- 8. Annual loss of dependency Rs.57,516/- (Rs.4,793/- × 12) 9. Multiplier 11 10. Loss of dependency Rs.6,32,676/- (Rs.57,516/- × 11) 11. Compensation under conventional heads to claimant No.1- wife Rs.35,000/- 12. Compensation to two children (loss of parental consortium) Rs.40,000/- (Rs.20,000 × 2) AMANDEEP GOSAIN 2026.07.20 17:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment FAO-3027-2002 (O&M) - 7- 13. Total Compensation Rs.7,07,676/- 14. Interest 9% 18. Resultantly, the appeal in hand is partly accepted with costs and claimants are held entitled to a sum of Rs.7,07,676/- as compensation. The enhanced compensation thus comes out to Rs.4,10,196/- (Rs.7,07,676/- - Rs.2,97,480/-) (rounded off to Rs.4,10,000/-) 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 till realization payable by respondents No.1 to 3 jointly and severally. Out of the enhanced compensation, a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- each along with proportionate interest be paid to claimants No.2 to 3 (son and daughter of the deceased) while balance amount be paid to claimant No.1 (wife) along with proportionate interest. 19. 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. 20. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. (YASHVIR SINGH RATHOR) 17.07.2026 JUDGE amandeep Whether speaking/reasoned. : Yes/No Whether Reportable. : Yes/No AMANDEEP GOSAIN 2026.07.20 17:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment