236 FAO-4434-2002 (O&M) Date of decision: 23.07.2026 GURMEET KAUR ETC. ....APPELLANTS VERSUS GEETA RAM ETC. ...RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHVIR SINGH RATHOR Present: Mr. P.S. Jammu, Advocate and Ms. B.K. Bhardwaj, Advocate for the appellants. Mr. Neeraj Khanna, Advocate and Mr. Ravinder Arora, Advocate for respondent No.2. YASHVIR SINGH RATHOR. J.(Oral) CM-16692-CII-2002 This is an application for condonation of delay of 203 days in re-filing the appeal. Keeping in view the averments made in the application, the same is allowed and delay in re-filing the appeal is condoned. CM stands disposed of. FAO-4434-2002 1. The record of the present case was destroyed in a fire incident in the High Court Registry. Learned counsel for the appellants/claimants has placed on record legible copy of applications, grounds of appeal, memo of parties and copy of Award passed by MACT, Sirsa, which are taken on record. Registry is directed to tag the same at an appropriate place on the record. 2. In the present case, all the respondents i.e. driver and owners of offending bus No.HP-12-4067 have been held liable to pay compensation to the VISHAL VARDHAN 2026.07.24 16:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document already represented by its counsel and as such, there is no necessity to issue notice to the driver (respondent No.1) and owner (respondent No.3) and service of above said respondents stands dispensed with. 3. This appeal has been instituted by claimants for enhancement of compensation against the Award dated 11.09.2001 decided by the MACT, Sirsa (for short “Tribunal”) passed in MACT case No.4 of 2000 in a petition under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short ‘Act’) vide which a sum of Rs.2,30,400/- 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 Balbir Singh in a motor vehicular accident which took place 01.09.2000 due to rash and negligent driving on the part of respondent No.1 while driving the Bus bearing No.HP-12-4067 (for short ‘offending vehicle’), owned by respondents No.2 and 3. 4. From the pleadings of parties, following issues were framed by the ld. Tribunal:- “1. Whether Balbir Singh son of Jeet Singh died in a road accident which occurred on 1.9.2000 in the area of Village Moujukhera, Distt. Sirsa due to rash and negligent driving on the part of respondent No.1, the driver of bus No.HP-12/4067? OPP 2. Whether the petitioners are entitled to the compensation being LRs of deceased Balbir Singh and if so for how much amount and from whom? OPP 3. Relief.” 5. Thereafter, the parties led evidence in support of their case. VISHAL VARDHAN 2026.07.24 16:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document learned Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.2,30,400/- as compensation to the claimants along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of claim petition till realization, payable by respondents No.1 to 3 jointly and severally. 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 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 respondents No.2 and 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.2,30,400/- 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. 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 further contended that deceased was 40 years of age and multiplier of 12 has been applied whereas multiplier of 15 should have been applied. 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 2026.07.24 16:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document counsel 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 and (2021) 11 SCC 780, United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Satinder Kaur. 10. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent No.2 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 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 VISHAL VARDHAN 2026.07.24 16:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 12. One of the claimant, namely, Gurmeet Kaur has stepped into the witness box and deposed that husband Balbir Singh (since deceased) was a driver by profession and used to earn more than Rs.5,000/- per month. However, learned Tribunal assessed the monthly income of the deceased to be Rs.2,400/- per month and after deducting 1/3rd of the amount, applied the multiplier of 12 and has awarded a total compensation of Rs.2,30,400/-. 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 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 monthly income. 13. In the present case, the accident had taken place on 01.09.2000 and it can be assumed that deceased who was travelling on his scooter at the time of accident and was a driver by profession must be earning at least Rs.3,500/- per month and accordingly, his income is taken as Rs.3,500/- per month. 14. Deceased was 40 years of age at the time of accident as per version of PW1 Gurmeet Kaur and it has also been so held by the learned Tribunal and as such, VISHAL VARDHAN 2026.07.24 16:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document future prospects in view of law laid down in Pranay Sethi’s case (supra), which takes his income to Rs.4,375/- per month. 15. The petition in hand has been instituted by wife, three children, and parents of the deceased. Hon’ble Supreme Court in 2025 Livelaw (SC) 309, Sadhana Tomar & Ors. Vs. Ashok Kushwaha & Ors, has held that a legal representative is one, who suffers on account of death of a person due to motor vehicle accident and need not necessarily be a wife, husband, parent or child. The term legal representative under Motor Vehicles Act should not be given a narrow interpretation to exclude those persons as claimants who were dependent on the deceased’s income. The father and sister, being financially dependent were held to be legal representatives under the Act entitling them to compensation. Accordingly, it is held that deceased has left behind 6 dependents and 1/4th of the income thus has to be deducted towards personal and living expenses. After deducting a sum of Rs.1093.75/- (rounded off to Rs.1094/-) towards personal expenses, the monthly loss of dependency comes out to Rs.3,281/- (Rs.4375/- - Rs.1094/-) and the annual loss of dependency comes out to Rs.39,372/- (Rs.3,281/- X 12). 16. As per guidelines laid down in Sarla Verma’s case (supra), multiplier of 15 has to be applied as deceased was 40 years of age and after applying the same, the compensation comes to Rs.5,90,580/- (Rs.39,372/- X 15). 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). VISHAL VARDHAN 2026.07.24 16:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document are also held entitled to a sum of Rs.40,000/- each on account of loss of parental consortium 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.8,60,580/-. 18. Accordingly, the compensation to be awarded to the appellants/claimants is assessed as under:- S.No. Under Head Compensation assessed by this Court 1. Age of deceased 40 years 2. Monthly income of deceased Rs.3,500/- per month 3. Future prospects @ 25% Rs.875/- 4. Total income Rs.4,375/- per month 5. Number of dependents 6 6. Deduction towards personal expenses of the deceased (1/4th) Rs.1,094/- 7. Monthly loss of dependency Rs.3,281/- 8. Annual loss of dependency Rs.39,372/- (Rs.3,281/- X 12) 9. Multiplier 15 10. Compensation on account of Loss of dependency Rs.5,90,580/- 11. Compensation under conventional heads to wife Rs.70,000/- 12. Loss of parental consortium to three children and filial consortium to parents of deceased Rs.2,00,000/- (Rs.40,000/- X 5) Total Compensation Rs.8,60,580/- Interest 9% per annum VISHAL VARDHAN 2026.07.24 16:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document appellants/claimants are held entitled to a sum of Rs.8,60,580/- as compensation. The enhanced compensation thus comes out to Rs.6,30,180/- (Rs.8,60,580/- - Rs.2,30,400/-), which is rounded off to Rs.6,30,000/- over and above the compensation awarded by the Tribunal alongwith interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of claim petition i.e. 06.10.2001, till realization payable by respondents No.1 to 3, jointly and severally. Out of the enhanced compensation, a sum of Rs.50,000/- each be paid to the children and parents of the deceased along with interest and remaining amount to claimant No.1/wife along with proportionate interest. 20. Pending misc. application (s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. (YASHVIR SINGH RATHOR) 23.07.2026 JUDGE Vishal Vardhan Whether speaking/reasoned. : Yes/No Whether reportable. : Yes/No VISHAL VARDHAN 2026.07.24 16:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document