FAO-4309-2002 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 238 FAO-4309-2002 (O&M) Date of Decision: 28.07.2026 Sunita and another .....Appellants Versus Gurminder Singh and others .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHVIR SINGH RATHOR Present: Mr. V.S.Punia, Advocate for the appellants. Service of respondents No.1 and 2 stands dispensed with vide order dated 09.04.2026. Mr. Neeraj Khanna, Advocate for Mr. Ravinder Arora, Advocate for respondent No.3. **** YASHVIR SINGH RATHOR , J.(Oral) 1. This appeal has been instituted by claimants for enhancement of compensation against the Award dated 03.09.2001 decided by the MACT, Jind (for short “Tribunal”) passed in MACT case No.61 of 31.10.1998 in a petition under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short ‘Act’) vide which a sum of Rs.4,49,000/- 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 Ishwar in a motor vehicle accident. 2. From the pleadings of parties, following issues were framed:- “1. Whether the accident was caused by respondent No.1 Gurminder Singh while driving the truck No.PB-08N-9811 rashly and negligently resulting into the causing of injuries to RAJEEV PUROHIT 2026.07.29 18:59 I am approving this document FAO-4309-2002 2 petitioners Jagpal, Jaswant and Satbir and death of deceased Suba Singh, Ishwar and Ramesh, as alleged? OPP. 2. If issue No.1 is proved, whether the petitioners are entitled to receive any compensation amount, if so how much and from whom? OPP. 3. Whether the accident had taken place on account of the rash and negligent driving of Tata Sumo No.DL-2CH-3258 being driven by Ramesh Kumar, as alleged, if so to what affect? OPP. 4. Whether the truck and the Tata Sumo in question were not being driven by duly licensed persons, as alleged if so to what effect? OPR. 5. Relief”. 3. Thereafter, the parties led evidence in support of their case. 4. After hearing the parties and going through the material on the file, learned Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.4,49,000/- as compensation to the claimants alongwith interest @ 9% 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 No.1 while driving the offending truck bearing No.PB-08N-9811, owned by RAJEEV PUROHIT 2026.07.29 18:59 I am approving this document FAO-4309-2002 3 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. 8. Learned counsel for the appellants argued that the impugned award vide which compensation of Rs.4,49,000/- 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 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. 9. 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. 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 RAJEEV PUROHIT 2026.07.29 18:59 I am approving this document FAO-4309-2002 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. 11. Claimant No.1-Sunita, while appearing as PW-5 deposed that her husband namely Ishwar was a driver and an agriculturist. He was the sole bread earner in the family and used to earn Rs.4,000/- per month while working as a driver with one Jagpal. He was 25 years of age at the time of death and was survived by her and his mother. Post-mortem Report (Ex.P- 11) has also been tendered in evidence which shows that he was 26 years of age. His driving licence has also been tendered in evidence as Ex.P-7 which shows that he possessed licence to drive heavy motor vehicles. Learned Tribunal has assessed his income as Rs.3,300/- per month as a driver and by adding Rs.300/- towards agricultural income, his income was taken as Rs.3600/- per month and after deducting 1/3 rd amount towards personal expenses, a sum of Rs.4,32,000/- was assessed as loss of dependency. A sum of Rs.17,000/- was awarded under conventional heads and total compensation of Rs.4,49,000/- was awarded. However, the compensation RAJEEV PUROHIT 2026.07.29 18:59 I am approving this document FAO-4309-2002 5 awarded by the learned Tribunal is grossly inadequate. The deceased is proved to be a driver by profession. The accident had taken place in the year 1998. 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, 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. 12. In the present case, the accident had taken place in the year 1998 and it can be assumed that the deceased who was a driver of heavy vehicles must be earning at least Rs.3,700/- per month while working as a driver. Learned Tribunal has thus gravely erred while assessing his monthly income to be Rs.3300/- per month, which is on lower side. Accordingly, income of deceased is taken as Rs.4,000/- per month by adding Rs.300/- towards agricultural income as on the date of accident i.e. 28.07.1998. RAJEEV PUROHIT 2026.07.29 18:59 I am approving this document FAO-4309-2002 6 13. Deceased was 26 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.5600/- (Rs.4000/- + Rs.1600/-). 14. Deceased has left behind two dependents i.e. wife and his 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.3734/- (Rs.5600/- – Rs.1866/-) and the annual loss of dependency comes out to Rs.44808/- (Rs.3734/- X 12). 15. 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.7,61,736/- (Rs.44808 X 17). 16. 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 1998 when the accident took place, the claimant No.1, who is wife 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.2, who is the mother of deceased is also held entitled to a sum of Rs.30,000/- for loss of filial consortium. 17. Accordingly, the compensation to be awarded to the claimants is assessed as under:- RAJEEV PUROHIT 2026.07.29 18:59 I am approving this document FAO-4309-2002 7 S.No. Under Head 1. Monthly income of deceased Rs.4000/- per month 2. Age of deceased 26 years 3. Future prospects @ 40% Rs.1600/- 4. Total income Rs.5600/- 5. Number of dependents 2 6. Deduction towards personal expenses of the deceased (1/3 rd) Rs.1866/- 7. Monthly loss of dependency Rs.3734/- 8. Annual loss of dependency Rs.44808/- (Rs.3734/- × 12) 9. Multiplier 17 10. Loss of dependency Rs.7,61,736/- (Rs.44808/- × 17) 11. Compensation under conventional heads to claimant No.1- wife Rs.50,000/- 12. Compensation to claimant No.2-mother (loss of filial consortium) Rs.30,000/- 13. Total Compensation Rs.8,41,736/- (rounded off to Rs.8,42,000/-) 14. Interest 9% 18. Resultantly, the appeal in hand is partly accepted with costs and claimants are held entitled to a sum of Rs.8,42,000/- as compensation. The enhanced compensation thus comes out to Rs.3,93,000/- (Rs.8,42,000/- - Rs.4,49,000/-) 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. Rs. 3,73,000/- till realization payable by respondent No.3- Insurance Company. Out of the enhanced compensation, a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- along with proportionate interest be paid to claimant No.2 (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 RAJEEV PUROHIT 2026.07.29 18:59 I am approving this document FAO-4309-2002 8 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. 20. 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 18:59 I am approving this document