FAO-4334-2002 (O&M) - 1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 246 FAO-4334-2002 (O&M) Date of decision: 20.07.2026 ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO.LTD. ....Appellant Versus BIMLA RANI & ORS. ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHVIR SINGH RATHOR Present : Mr. Kartik Patial, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Saarib Aggarwal, Advocate for respondent No.4. Mr. Naveen Sharma Moudgil, Advocate for respondent No.5. YASHVIR SINGH RATHOR. J.(Oral) 1. A copy of the judgment dated 18.05.2026 passed by this Court in FAO No.2923/2001 has been placed on record by learned counsel for respondent No.4. Registry is directed to tag the same at an appropriate place. 2. The present appeal has been filed by the Insurance Company, vide which the driver, owner and insurer have been held liable to pay compensation to the claimants jointly and severally. Respondents No.1 and 2 in the present appeal are the claimants and the dispute is between the insurer and the insured regarding liability and in these circumstances, there is no necessity to issue notice to claimants/respondents No.1 and 2 and issuance of notice to them is dispensed AMANDEEP GOSAIN 2026.07.24 11:40 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment FAO-4334-2002 (O&M) - 2- with. 3. The present appeal has been preferred by Oriental Insurance Company against the Award dated 30.03.2002 passed by MACT Jalandhar, in MACT case No.56/2001, vide which a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- has been awarded to the claimants on account of death of Ashwani Kumar, who was son of claimant No.1 and husband of claimant No.2, due to rash and negligent driving on the part of respondent No.1-Balwinder Singh, while driving offending vehicle bearing No.CH-01M-3326, owned by respondent No.2 and insured with respondent No.5- Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., which met with an accident with a Punjab Roadways bus, driven by respondent No.3 and owned by respondent No.4. 4. Learned Tribunal held that accident in question had taken place due to rash and negligent driving on the part of respondent No.1 and respondents No.1, 2 and 5 were held liable to pay compensation to the claimants 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. Learned counsel for the appellant argued that the driver of the offending vehicle did not possess a valid and effective driving licence on the date of accident and he was also not having an endorsement on the licence, permitting him to carry Formic Acid in the offending tanker and as such, Insurance Company should have been exonerated of its liability to indemnify the insured. 7. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.4/owner of the offending vehicle argued that driver possessed a valid and effective driving licence. Several claim petitions were filed by the injured persons in respect of the injuries suffered by them in the same accident. Five petitions were filed before AMANDEEP GOSAIN 2026.07.24 11:40 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment FAO-4334-2002 (O&M) - 3- MACT Rupnagar, which held that driver did not possess a valid and effective driving licence and against the Awards passed by MACT, Rupnagar, the owner had instituted five appeals i.e. FAO-2923-2001, FAO-2924-2001, FAO-2925-2001, FAO- 2926-2001 and FAO-3410-2001 and this Court vide judgment dated 18.05.2026 has disposed of the said appeals and has held that the driver possessed a valid and effective driving licence and while relying upon the Award dated 30.06.2001 passed by MACT, Una, in claim petition titled, Sheela Devi Vs. Balwinder Singh. it has been held that formic acid was being transported in the said vehicle, which was not an explosive substance, which would require special endorsement or permission. The MACT Una had given this finding on the basis of report of Deputy Chief Explosive Controller, Chandigarh as well as of Deputy Director Toxicology FSL, Punjab, who had given the definite opinion that formic acid was not an explosive chemical and the Insurance Company was held liable to indemnify the insured. Learned counsel next contended that this Court while deciding the afore-said five appeals has also held Insurance Company liable after coming to the conclusion that the driver possessed a valid and effective driving licence and he argued that the present appeal is liable to be dismissed. 8. Learned counsel next contended that the Tribunal has not awarded adequate compensation to the claimants. The income of the deceased has been assessed on lower side. No future prospects have been added to the income of the deceased. No compensation has been awarded for loss of consortium, loss of estate and funeral expenses etc. and he prayed that compensation be adequately enhanced. In support of his contentions, learned counsel has relied upon 2009(6) SCC 121 Sarla Verma and others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and AMANDEEP GOSAIN 2026.07.24 11:40 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment FAO-4334-2002 (O&M) - 4- 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. 9. A copy of Judgment dated 18.05.2026 passed by this Court in the said five appeals has been placed on file, which shows that these claim petitions had been decided by MACT Rupnagar, which had arisen out of the same accident. Vide Award dated 08.05.2000, MACT, Rupnagar had held that the driver did not possess a valid and effective driving licence and the Insurance Company had been exonerated of its liability to indemnify the insured. However, this Court vide afore-said judgment dated 18.05.2026 has held that driver possessed the licence authorizing him to drive a light motor vehicle and since the gross vehicle weight of the offending vehicle was less than 7500 Kgs, it fell within the definition of “light motor vehicle” in view of definition given in Section 2(21) of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and by placing reliance upon 2024 INSC 840 M/s Bajaj Alliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Rambha Devi and Ors, it has further been held that a person holding a licence to drive a “light motor vehicle” can ply a light transport vehicle and that driver possessed a valid and effective driving licence. It has also been held by relying upon Award dated 30.06.2001 passed by MACT, Una in claim petition bearing No.61/1997 titled, Sheela Devi Vs. Balwinder Singh that formic acid which was being carried in the offending vehicle was not an explosive chemical, which would require special endorsement or permission on the driving licence and Insurance Company has been held liable to indemnify the insured. The judgment passed by this Court shall operate as res- AMANDEEP GOSAIN 2026.07.24 11:40 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment FAO-4334-2002 (O&M) - 5- judicata and is binding upon Insurance Company on the issue of inter se liability of the insured and the insurer. 10. Accordingly, no ground to interfere in the findings of the Tribunal under Issue No.4 is made out and finding on issue No.4 is affirmed. 11. Resultantly, the appeal in hand is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs. 12. The next point to be decided is as to whether this Court while deciding an appeal instituted by the Insurance Company against the award of compensation can enhance the compensation without any appeal or cross- objections having been filed by the claimant. The answer to this question is certainly in the affirmative. A Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Law Finder Doc Id #2884320, United India Insurance Co. Ltd Vs. Taraqqi Lal (Since Deceased) and others, while placing reliance upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in (2021) 16 SCC 467, Surekha and Ors. Vs. Santosh and Ors., has held that the Appellate Court has jurisdiction to enhance compensation even when claimant has not filed cross-appeal or cross-objections as assessment of just compensation is the statutory duty of the court and procedural technicalities cannot deprive claimant of his legitimate entitlement. In Surekha Vs. Santosh’s case (supra), High Court of Judicature at Bombay while deciding the appeal filed by the Insurance Company had held that compensation amount payable to claimants ought to have been Rs.49,85,376/- but declined to grant enhancement merely on the ground that claimants/appellants had failed to file cross-appeal. However, Hon’ble Supreme Court held that it is well settled that in the matter of insurance claim compensation in reference to the motor accident cases, the courts AMANDEEP GOSAIN 2026.07.24 11:40 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment FAO-4334-2002 (O&M) - 6- should not take hypertechnical approach and should ensure that just compensation is awarded to the affected person or the claimants and awarded the enhanced compensation as assessed by Bombay High Court. 13. The next point to be determined is about the quantum of compensation that may be awarded to the claimant. 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. 14. In the present case, deceased was working in a private occupation and learned Tribunal has rightly assessed the income of the deceased to be Rs.3,000/- per month. Accordingly, income of deceased is taken as Rs.3,000/- per month. AMANDEEP GOSAIN 2026.07.24 11:40 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment FAO-4334-2002 (O&M) - 7- 15. 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 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/-). 16. Deceased has left behind two dependents i.e. wife and mother, 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.2,800/- (Rs.4,200/- – Rs.1,400/-) and the annual loss of dependency comes out to Rs.33,600/- (Rs.2,800/- × 12) and 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/-. 17. 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 1997, when the accident took place, the claimant No.2 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, claimant No.1 is also held entitled to a sum of Rs.20,000/- for filial consortium. 18. Accordingly, the compensation to be awarded to the appellants/claimants is assessed as under:- S.No. Under Head 1. Age of deceased 28 years AMANDEEP GOSAIN 2026.07.24 11:40 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment FAO-4334-2002 (O&M) - 8- 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 2 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.2- wife Rs.35,000/- 12. Compensation to claimant No.1-mother (loss of filial consortium) Rs.20,000/- 13. Total Compensation Rs.6,26,200/- (rounded off to Rs.6,26,000/-) 14. Interest 9% 19. Resultantly, the claimants are held entitled to a sum of Rs.6,26,000/- as compensation. The enhanced compensation thus comes out to Rs.3,26,000/- (Rs.6,26,000/- - Rs.3,00,000/-) 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. 26.07.1997 till realization payable by respondents No.1, 2 and 5 jointly and severally. Out of the enhanced compensation, a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- along with proportionate interest be paid to claimants No.1 (mother of the deceased) while balance amount be paid to claimant No.2 (wife) along with proportionate interest. 20. 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 AMANDEEP GOSAIN 2026.07.24 11:40 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment FAO-4334-2002 (O&M) - 9- 16.03.2021 and Insurance Company shall comply with the directions as issued under Clause (F) of the said judgment. 21. Since claimants are not a party in this appeal and enhanced amount of compensation has been awarded to them, a copy of this order be sent to Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jalandhar as well as Chief Judicial Magistrate-cum- Secretary, District Legal Services Authority, Jalandhar, who shall communicate the Award to the claimants namely Smt. Bimla Rani, w/o Dharm Pal, R/o House No.252, Defence Colony, Jalandhar and Smt. Meena wd/o Ashwani Kumar, R/o V.P.O. Amroh, District Hoshiarpur as well as their counsel namely Mr. J.S. Uppal. 22. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. (YASHVIR SINGH RATHOR) 20.07.2026 JUDGE amandeep Whether speaking/reasoned. : Yes/No Whether Reportable. : Yes/No AMANDEEP GOSAIN 2026.07.24 11:40 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment