FAO-3384-2002 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 242 FAO-3384-2002 (O&M) Date of Decision: 27.07.2026 Asha Rani and others .....Appellants Versus Bhartendu Kumar and others .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHVIR SINGH RATHOR Present: Mr. Sandeep Jasuja, Advocate for the appellants. None for respondents No.1 and 2. Mr. Paul S. Saini, Advocate for respondent No.3-Insurance Company. **** YASHVIR SINGH RATHOR , J.(Oral) 1. A perusal of the Award shows that respondents have been held liable to pay a sum of Rs.4,17,158/- to the claimants jointly and severally. Insurance Company is already represented by its counsel and there is thus no necessity to issue notice to respondents No.1 and 2 and issuance of notice to respondents No.1 and 2 is dispensed with. 2. This appeal has been instituted for enhancement of compensation against the Award dated 09.03.2002 decided by the MACT, Chandigarh (for short “Tribunal”) passed in MACT case No.225 of 06.12.1999 in a petition under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short ‘Act’) vide which a sum of Rs.4,17,158/- 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 Sham Lal Sharma in a motor vehicle accident. RAJEEV PUROHIT 2026.07.28 17:37 I am approving this document FAO-3384-2002 2 3. From the pleadings of parties, following issues were framed:- “1. Whether respondent No.1 by driving scooter No.CH01U- 0352 rashly and negligently caused the accident on 25.08.99 resulting into the death of Sham Lal ? OPP. 2. To what amount of compensation claimants are entitled, if so, from whom? OPA. XXXXXX”. 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.4,17,158/- as compensation to the claimants alongwith interest @ 9 % per annum from the date of filing of claim petition till realization payable by all the respondents jointly and severally. 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 scooter bearing No.CH01U-0352, 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. RAJEEV PUROHIT 2026.07.28 17:37 I am approving this document FAO-3384-2002 3 9. Learned counsel for the appellants argued that the impugned award vide which compensation of Rs.4,17,158/- 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 future prospects have not been added to the monthly income of the deceased contrary to settled provisions of law. The compensation towards loss of consortium and loss of estate have also not been awarded 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 (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 RAJEEV PUROHIT 2026.07.28 17:37 I am approving this document FAO-3384-2002 4 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. The stand of claimants is that deceased Sham Lal Sharma was working with City Agro Centre and was getting salary of Rs.6,500/- per month. PW-3 Gurmit Singh, Godown Incharge of City Agro Centre has proved the authority letter Ex.P-5 in his favour vide which he has been authorised to depose on behalf of City Agro Centre. He deposed that deceased Sham Lal Sharma was working in the City Agro Centre, Sector 22- C, Chandigarh and was looking after the working of Marketing and was getting Rs.6,500/- salary per month vide salary certificate Ex.P-36 issued by Mr. Gursharan Singh, Proprietor of City Agro Centre. Learned Tribunal also believed his testimony so far as employment and salary of deceased is concerned. Accordingly, there is no reason to take a contrary view that the salary of deceased is taken as Rs.6,500/- per month. 13. Deceased was 55 years of age as stated by PW-2 and as also mentioned in Post-mortem Report Ex.P-1. Accordingly, the age of deceased is taken as 55 years and as such, 10% 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.7150/- RAJEEV PUROHIT 2026.07.28 17:37 I am approving this document FAO-3384-2002 5 (Rs.6500/- + Rs.650/-). 14. Deceased has left behind five dependents i.e. wife and four children 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.5363/- (Rs.7150/- – Rs.1787/-) and the annual loss of dependency comes out to Rs.64356/- (Rs.5363/- X 12). 15. Since deceased was 55 years of age, multiplier of 11 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.7,07,916/-. 16. Learned Tribunal has also awarded a sum of Rs. 15,158/-on account of expenses incurred on treatment prior to his death. However, it is a matter of common knowledge that patients and their attendants generally do not preserve all the bills as their primary concern is to provide proper treatment to the patient and some amount of guesswork thus has to be applied in assessing the expenses incurred on treatment and accordingly, claimants are held entitled to a sum of Rs.20,000/- for the expenses incurred on treatment as against Rs.15,158/- assessed by the Tribunal. 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, 3, 4 and 5 (sons and daughers 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 RAJEEV PUROHIT 2026.07.28 17:37 I am approving this document FAO-3384-2002 6 case (supra), which takes the compensation to Rs.9,57,916/-. 18. Accordingly, the compensation to be awarded to the claimants is assessed as under:- S.No. Under Head 1. Monthly income of deceased Rs.6500/- per month 2. Age of deceased 55 years 3. Future prospects @ 10% Rs.650/- 4. Total income Rs.7150/- 5. Number of dependents 5 6. Deduction towards personal expenses of the deceased (¼ th) Rs.1787/- 7. Monthly loss of dependency Rs.5363/- 8. Annual loss of dependency Rs.64356/- (Rs.5363/- × 12) 9. Multiplier 11 10. Loss of dependency Rs.7,07,916/- (Rs.64356/- × 11) 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.1,60,000/- (Rs.40,000 × 4) 13. Expenses on treatment Rs.20000 13. Total Compensation Rs.9,57,916/- 14. Interest 9% 19. Resultantly, the appeal in hand is partly accepted with costs and claimants are held entitled to a sum of Rs.9,57,916/- as compensation. The enhanced compensation thus comes out to Rs.5,40,758/- (Rs.9,57,916/- - Rs.4,17,158/-) (rounded off to Rs.5,41,000/-) 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. 06.12.1999 till realization payable by respondents 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 to 5 (children of the deceased) while balance amount be paid to claimant No.1 (wife) along with proportionate interest. RAJEEV PUROHIT 2026.07.28 17:37 I am approving this document FAO-3384-2002 7 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 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. 27.07.2026 (YASHVIR SINGH RATHOR) Rajeev (rvs) JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No RAJEEV PUROHIT 2026.07.28 17:37 I am approving this document