AO-5159-2002 -- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 239 FAO-5159-2002 Date of decision: 18.08.2026 SATYA DEVI AND ORS. ....APPELLANTS VERSUS THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER,ORIENTAL INSURANCE AND ANR. ...RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHVIR SINGH RATHOR Present: Mr. Ashwani Arora, Advocate and Mr. Vipul Sharma, Advocate for the appellants. Mr. Siddheshwar Hans, Advocate for Ms. Veena Ashwani Talwar, Advocate for respondent No.1-OIC. Respondent No.2 ex parte before the Tribunal. ***** YASHVIR SINGH RATHOR. J.(Oral) 1. This appeal has been instituted by claimants for enhancement of compensation against the Award dated 23.08.2002 passed by MACT, Chandigarh (for short “Tribunal”) in MACT case No.96 of 07.06.2000 in a petition under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short ‘Act’) vide which a sum of Rs.6,44,832/- 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 Subhash Chander in a motor vehicular accident which took place on 17.05.2000 due to rash and negligent driving on the part of driver of Maruti Car bearing No.DDV-4263 (for short ‘offending vehicle’), owned by respondents No.1 and 2. VISHAL VARDHAN 2026.08.19 18:50 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document AO-5159-2002 -- 2. From the pleadings of parties, following issues were framed by the learned Tribunal:- “1. Whether Subhash Chander died in a road side accident due to rash or negligent driving of Maruti Car No.DDV-4263 by its driver and owned by respondent No.1 as alleged? OPP 2. If issue No.1 is proved, whether the claimants are entitled to any amount as compensation, if so, to what amount and from whom? OPP 3. Whether the petition is bad for misjoinder and non-joinder of the parties? OPD 4. Whether the respondent No.1 was not the owner of the Car No.DDV-4263 as alleged, if so, to what effect? OPR 5. Whether the petition has been filed without any cause of action and locus standi? OPR 6. Relief.” 3. Thereafter, the parties led evidence in support of their case. 4. After hearing the parties and on going through the material on the file, learned Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.6,44,832/- as compensation to the claimants along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of claim petition till realization payable by respondents 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. 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 driver of the offending vehicle, owned by respondents No.1 and 2. No appeal or cross-objections have been filed by VISHAL VARDHAN 2026.08.19 18:50 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document AO-5159-2002 -- respondents, challenging the said finding and accordingly, finding on issue No.1 is not required to be interfered with. 7. Learned counsel for the appellants argued that the impugned award vide which compensation of Rs.6,44,832/- 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 next contended that deceased has left behind eight dependents and 1/5th amount should have been deducted from his income towards personal expenses instead of 1/3rd as has been done by the Tribunal. Learned counsel further contended that deceased was 45 years of age and multiplier of 12 has been applied whereas multiplier of 14 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 suitably enhanced. In support of his contentions, learned 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. 8. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent No.1 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. VISHAL VARDHAN 2026.08.19 18:50 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document AO-5159-2002 -- 9. Coming to the assessment of compensation, 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. 10. The claim petition has been filed by the wife, six children and mother of the deceased. As per their version, deceased Subhash Chander was employed in Forest Department as a Forest Guard. To prove his income, claimants have examined PW1 Brij Lal, Junior Assistant from the Forest Department, who tendered his salary certificate Ex.P1, according to which his salary was Rs.6,717/- per month. Learned Tribunal has also held the salary of deceased to be Rs.6,717/- per month and there is no reason to take a contrary view. VISHAL VARDHAN 2026.08.19 18:50 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document AO-5159-2002 -- 11. As per version of claimants, deceased was 45 years of age and since deceased was in permanent employment, 30% 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.8,732/- per month (Rs.6,717/- + Rs.2,015/-). Out of this amount, a sum of Rs.500/- shall be deductible towards income tax and after deducting the same, the monthly income comes out to Rs.8,232/- (Rs.8,732/- - Rs.500/-). 12. The petition in hand has been instituted by wife, six children and mother of the deceased. Accordingly, it is held that deceased has left behind eight dependents and 1/5th 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.1,646/- towards personal expenses, the monthly loss of dependency comes out to Rs.6,586/- (Rs.8,232/- - Rs.1,646/-) and the annual loss of dependency comes out to Rs.79,032/- (Rs.6,586/- X 12). 13. As per guidelines laid down in Sarla Verma’s case (supra), multiplier of 14 has to be applied as deceased was 45 years of age and after applying the same, the total loss of dependency comes to Rs.11,06,448/- (Rs.79,032/- X 14). 14. 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 to 8 who are children and mother of deceased are also held entitled to a sum of Rs.40,000/- each on account of loss of parental consortium and loss of filial consortium, in view of law laid down in ‘Magma VISHAL VARDHAN 2026.08.19 18:50 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document AO-5159-2002 -- General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram’s case (supra) and United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Satinder Kaur’s case (supra), which takes the compensation to Rs.14,56,448/-. 15. 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 45 years 2. Monthly income of deceased Rs.6,717/- per month 3. Future prospects @ 30% Rs.2,015/- 4. Total income Rs.8,732/- per month 5. Income Tax Deduction Rs.500/- 6. Total income after tax deduction Rs.8,232/- 7. Number of dependents 8 8. Deduction towards personal expenses of the deceased (1/5th) Rs.1,646/- 9. Monthly loss of dependency Rs.6,586/- 10. Annual loss of dependency Rs.79,032/- (Rs.6,586/- X 12) 11. Multiplier 14 12. Compensation on account of Loss of dependency Rs.11,06,448/- 13. Compensation under conventional heads to claimant No.1/wife Rs.70,000/- 14. Loss of parental consortium to children and loss of filial consortium to parents of deceased Rs.2,80,000/- (Rs.40,000/- X 7) Total Compensation Rs.14,56,448/- Interest 9% 16. Resultantly, the appeal in hand is partly accepted with costs and appellants/claimants are held entitled to a sum of Rs.14,56,448/- as compensation. VISHAL VARDHAN 2026.08.19 18:50 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document AO-5159-2002 -- The enhanced compensation thus comes out to Rs.8,11,616/- (Rs.14,56,448/- - Rs.6,44,832/-), which is rounded off to Rs.8,11,500/- 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. 07.06.2000, till realization payable on the same terms as has been ordered by the Tribunal. Out of the enhanced compensation, a sum of Rs.50,000/- each be paid to the children and Rs.1,00,000/- to mother of the deceased along with proportionate interest and remaining amount to claimant No.1/wife along with proportionate interest. 17. Registry is directed to email the authenticated copy of the judgment 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. 18. Pending misc. application (s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. 18.08.2026 (YASHVIR SINGH RATHOR) Vishal Vardhan JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned. : Yes/No Whether reportable. : Yes/No VISHAL VARDHAN 2026.08.19 18:50 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document