FAO-5140-2002 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 276 FAO-5140-2002 (O&M) Date of Decision: 16.07.2026 Jasbir Kaur and others .....Appellants Versus Raj Kumar and another .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHVIR SINGH RATHOR Present: Mr. Vipul Sharma, Advocate for the appellants. Mr. Suvir Dewan, Advocate for respondent No.2-Insurance Company. **** YASHVIR SINGH RATHOR , J.(Oral) 1. Learned counsel for respondent No. 2 appeared. A perusal of Award shows that learned Tribunal has held the owner, driver and insurer jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation. Therefore, there is no necessity to issue notice to owner and driver. Accordingly, issuance of notice to respondent No. 1 is dispensed with. 2. This appeal has been instituted for enhancement of compensation against the Award dated 20.07.2002 decided by the MACT, Panchkula (for short “Tribunal”) passed in MACT case No.219 of 28.07.2001 in a petition under Section 166 read with Section 163-A of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short ‘Act’) vide which a sum of Rs.2,80,000/- 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 Harinder Singh in a motor vehicle RAJEEV PUROHIT 2026.07.20 14:27 I am approving this document FAO-5140-2002 2 accident. 3. From the pleadings of parties, following issues were framed:- “1. Whether the accident in question took place on account of rash and negligent driving of truck No.PB-11-C-3237 by respondent No.1 ? OPP. 2. If issue no. 1 is proved, whether the claimant is entitled to compensation for the injuries sustained in the said accident if so to what amount 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 terms and conditions of insurance policy? OPR. 4. 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.2,80,000/- 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 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 truck bearing No.PB-11-C-3237, also RAJEEV PUROHIT 2026.07.20 14:27 I am approving this document FAO-5140-2002 3 owned by respondent No.1. 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.2,80,000/- 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. The compensation awarded towards loss of consortium, loss of estate and funeral expenses is also on the lower side and he prayed that same be suitably enhanced. 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. 10. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.2 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 RAJEEV PUROHIT 2026.07.20 14:27 I am approving this document FAO-5140-2002 4 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, deceased has left behind his wife, one minor son and parents who were dependent upon him. Deceased was working as a Volunteer in Home Guard, Chandigarh and getting salary of Rs.2,100/- per month. To prove his income, claimants had also examined PW-1, namely, Balbir Singh from the office of Home Guard, UT, Chandigarh who deposed that date of birth of deceased was 17.05.1973 and he was getting salary of Rs.2100/- per month as per salary certificate Ex.P-1. As such, it is established that deceased was earning Rs.2100/- per month and he was 28 years of age on the date of accident. Learned Tribunal had deducted 1/3rd amount towards personal expenses whereas 1/4th of amount was liable to be deducted towards personal expenses since deceased has left behind 4 dependents. 13. Deceased was 28 years of age and as such, 40% amount has to be added to the monthly income of the deceased towards future prospects in RAJEEV PUROHIT 2026.07.20 14:27 I am approving this document FAO-5140-2002 5 view of law laid down in Pranay Sethi’s case (supra), which takes his income to Rs.2940/- (Rs.2100/- + Rs.840/-). 14. Deceased has left behind four dependents i.e. wife, minor son and parents, and as such 1/4th 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.2205/- (Rs.2940/- – Rs.735/-) and the annual loss of dependency comes out to Rs.26460/- (Rs.2205/- X 12). 15. Since deceased was 28 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.4,49,820/-. 16. 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 3 (son 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.5,99,820/-. 17. Accordingly, the compensation to be awarded to the claimants is assessed as under:- S.No. Under Head 1. Monthly income of deceased Rs.2100/- per month 2. Age of deceased 28 years 3. Future prospects @ 40% Rs.840/- 4. Total income Rs.2940/- RAJEEV PUROHIT 2026.07.20 14:27 I am approving this document FAO-5140-2002 6 5. Number of dependents 4 6. Deduction towards personal expenses of the deceased (¼ th) Rs.735/- 7. Monthly loss of dependency Rs.2205/- 8. Annual loss of dependency Rs.26460/- (Rs.2205/- × 12) 9. Multiplier 17 10. Loss of dependency Rs.4,49,820/- (Rs.26460/- × 17) 11. Compensation under conventional heads to claimant No.1- wife Rs.70,000/- 12. Compensation to one son and mother (loss of parental and filial consortium) Rs.80,000/- (Rs.40,000 × 2) 13. Total Compensation Rs.5,99,820/- 14. Interest 9% 18. Resultantly, the appeal in hand is partly accepted with costs and claimants are held entitled to a sum of Rs.5,99,820/- as compensation. The enhanced compensation thus comes out to Rs.3,19,820/- (Rs.5,99,820/- - Rs.2,80,000/-) (rounded off to Rs.3,20,000/-) 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. 28.07.2001 till realization payable by respondents No.1 and 2 jointly and severally. Out of the enhanced compensation, a sum of Rs.50,000/- each along with proportionate interest be paid to claimants No.2 and 3 (son and mother 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. RAJEEV PUROHIT 2026.07.20 14:27 I am approving this document FAO-5140-2002 7 20. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. 16.07.2026 (YASHVIR SINGH RATHOR) Rajeev (rvs) JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No RAJEEV PUROHIT 2026.07.20 14:27 I am approving this document