FAO-2242-2002 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 234 FAO-2242-2002 (O&M) Date of Decision: 28.07.2026 Chhotu Ram and another .....Appellants Versus Rambir .....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHVIR SINGH RATHOR Present: Mr. Akash Jain, Advocate for Mr. Sumeet Jain, Advocate for the appellants. Mr. Tarun Yadav, Advocate with Mr. Pawan Kumar, Advocate for respondent. **** YASHVIR SINGH RATHOR , J.(Oral) 1. This appeal has been instituted for enhancement of compensation against the Award dated 03.01.2001 decided by the MACT, Gurgaon (for short “Tribunal”) passed in MACT case No.57 of 02.03.2000 in a petition under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short ‘Act’) vide which a sum of Rs.94,500/- has been awarded as compensation to the claimants along with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of filing of claim petition till realization on account of death of Balram in a motor vehicle accident. 2. From the pleadings of parties, following issues were framed:- “1. Whether the motor cycle vehicle accident that occurred on 13.11.99 is an outcome of rash and negligent driving of tractor No.HR-14-0544 by respondent No.1 2. Whether the petitioners are entitled to compensation for the death of Balram in the aforesaid accident ? If so in what amount? OPP 3. Relief.” 3. Thereafter, the parties led evidence in support of their case. 4. After hearing the parties and going through the material on the RAJEEV PUROHIT 2026.07.29 16:50 I am approving this document FAO-2242-2002 2 file, learned Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.94,500/- as compensation to the claimants alongwith interest @ 12 % per annum from the date of filing of claim petition till realization. 5. Feeling aggrieved, the appeal in hand has been preferred. The material on file has been perused and parties have been heard. 6. 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. 7. 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 while driving the offending truck bearing No.HR-14-0544, owned by him. No appeal or cross-objections have been filed by respondent, challenging the said finding and accordingly finding on issue No.1 is not required to be interfered with. 8. Learned counsel for the appellants argued that the impugned award vide which compensation of Rs.94500/- 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 deceased has been assessed on lower side and 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 has also not been awarded and he prayed that same be suitably enhanced. In support of his contentions, RAJEEV PUROHIT 2026.07.29 16:50 I am approving this document FAO-2242-2002 3 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. 9. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent 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. 10. 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 RAJEEV PUROHIT 2026.07.29 16:50 I am approving this document FAO-2242-2002 4 assessed by taking into consideration above-said parameters. 11. As per version of claimants, their son Balram was a diploma holder as Radio and Television Technician and used to run his own business and earn Rs.4000/- per month. Learned Tribunal held that deceased was 30 years of age who was a bachelor and would have got married in future and the monthly dependency of the claimant was taken as 1500/- per month. However, the compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal is grossly inadequate. The deceased had a diploma holder and the accident had taken place in the year 1999. However, it is a matter of common knowledge that claimants are often unable to produce documentary proof of income of the deceased and some amount of guess work has to be applied while assessing the monthly income. Hon'ble Supreme Court in (2022) 1 SCC 198, Chandra 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. Hon’ble Supreme Court in 2019 (5) RCR (Civil) 884, Chameli Devi and others Vs. Jivrali Mian and others, has assessed the monthly income of a carpenter to be Rs.5000/- per month in the year 2001 and it was further held that in such cases where deceased is engaged in such type of profession, claimants can only lead oral evidence. In these circumstances, RAJEEV PUROHIT 2026.07.29 16:50 I am approving this document FAO-2242-2002 5 the monthly income of the deceased is assessed as Rs.3000/- as on the date of accident i.e. 13.11.1999. 12. Deceased was 30 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 monthly income to Rs.4200/- (Rs.3000/- + Rs.1200/-). 13. The petition in hand has been instituted by 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 are legal representatives under the Act entitling them to compensation. Accordingly, it is held that deceased has left behind two dependents. Deceased was a bachelor. As such, 50% of the income thus has to be deducted towards personal and living expenses in view of law laid down in Sarla Verma’s case (supra). After deducting a sum of Rs.2,100/- towards personal expenses, the annual loss of dependency comes out to Rs.25,200/-. 14. Since deceased was 30 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.4,28,400/-. 15. 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 RAJEEV PUROHIT 2026.07.29 16:50 I am approving this document FAO-2242-2002 6 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 1999 when the accident took place, the claimant No.2, who is mother of deceased is held entitled to a sum of Rs.30,000/- towards loss of consortium, Rs.10,000/- for funeral expenses and Rs.10,000/- for loss of estate. Likewise, claimant No.1 who is father of deceased is also held entitled to a sum of Rs.30,000/- for loss of filial consortium. 16. Accordingly, the compensation to be awarded to the claimants is assessed as under:- S.No. Under Head 1. Monthly income of deceased Rs.3,000/- per month 2. Age of deceased 30 years 3. Future prospects @ 40% Rs.1,200/- 4. Total income Rs.4,200/- (Rs.3,000+Rs.1,200) 5. Number of dependents 2 6. Deduction towards personal expenses of the deceased (50 %) Rs.2,100/- 7. Monthly loss of dependency Rs.2100/- 8. Annual loss of dependency Rs.25,200/- (Rs.2100/- × 12) 9. Multiplier 17 10. Loss of dependency Rs.4,28,400/- (Rs.25200/- × 17) 11. Compensation under conventional heads to claimant No.2- mother Rs.50,000/- 13 Loss of filial consortium to claimant No.1-father Rs.30,000/- 14. Total Compensation Rs.5,08,400/- (rounded off to Rs.5,08,500/-) 15. Interest 9% 17. Resultantly, the appeal in hand is partly accepted with costs and RAJEEV PUROHIT 2026.07.29 16:50 I am approving this document FAO-2242-2002 7 claimants are held entitled to a sum of Rs.5,08,500/- as compensation to be shared by them equally. The enhanced compensation thus comes out to Rs.4,14,000/- (Rs.5,08,500/- - Rs.94500/-) 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. 02.03.2000 till realization payable by respondent. 18. 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. 19. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. 28.07.2026 (YASHVIR SINGH RATHOR) Rajeev (rvs) JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned Yes Whether reportable Yes RAJEEV PUROHIT 2026.07.29 16:50 I am approving this document