FAO-2166-2003 (O&M) - 1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO-2166-2003 (O&M) Date of decision: 15.07.2026 PRITAM SINGH & ANOTHER ....Appellants Versus DARSHAN SINGH Etc. ...Respondents 1. Judgment reserved on 13.07.2026 2. Judgment pronounced on 15.07.2026 3. Judgment uploaded on 15.07.2026 4. Whether only operative part of the judgment is pronounced or whether the full judgment is pronounced. Full 5. The delay, if any of the pronouncement of full judgment and reason thereof. Nil CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHVIR SINGH RATHOR Present : Mr. Yashpal Thakur, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. R.C. Gupta, Advocate for the respondents. YASHVIR SINGH RATHOR. J.(Oral) 1. This appeal has been instituted by claimants against the Award dated 14.02.2003 passed in MACT case No.17-t of 22.8.1998 by MACT, Patiala (for short “Tribunal”) in a petition under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 vide which a sum of Rs.96,000/- has been awarded as compensation to the claimant along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of filing of claim petition till realization on account of death of Roop Singh in a motor vehicle accident. 2. From the pleadings of parties, following issues were framed:- “1. Whether Roop Singh died in a motor vehicular accident which AMANDEEP GOSAIN 2026.07.15 19:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment FAO-2166-2003 (O&M) - 2- took place on 9.11.1998 at 8.30 a.m. on Saman-Patiala road near Sardha Polyvin Factor Samana, while he was travelling in car No.PIM-480, on account of rash and negligent driving of truck No.WB-23/5588 respondent No.2-Avtar Singh?OPA. 2. If issue No.1 above is proved, whether the claimants are entitled to compensation? If so its effect?OPA 3. Whether the driver of truck No.WB-23/5588 was not holding a valid and effective driving licence. If so its effect?OPR 4. 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.96,000/- as compensation to the claimants alongwith interest @ 6% 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 Registry 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.2 while driving the offending truck bearing No.WB-23/5588, owned by respondent No.1 and insured with AMANDEEP GOSAIN 2026.07.15 19:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment FAO-2166-2003 (O&M) - 3- 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.96,000/- 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. Learned counsel further contended that future prospects have also not been added to the monthly income of the deceased contrary to settled provisions of law. No compensation has been 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 respondents 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 AMANDEEP GOSAIN 2026.07.15 19:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment FAO-2166-2003 (O&M) - 4- 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. 11. The claim petition has been instituted by parents of deceased Roop Singh. As per their version, deceased was 19 years of age and he was a mason and also used to repair televisions, tape recorders and radios etc. and used to earn Rs.10,000/- per month. To the same effect is the testimony of PW1-Pritam Singh. Claimants have also examined AW2-Arvind Kaushal, who deposed that deceased had learnt the work of repair of televisions, tape recorders and radios etc. in the year 1995 at his shop. Thereafter, he stopped working at his shop and started working as a mason. However, the evidence led by the claimants in this regard was not relied upon by the Tribunal, as PW2-Arvind Kaushal did not bring any AMANDEEP GOSAIN 2026.07.15 19:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment FAO-2166-2003 (O&M) - 5- account book of his shop to establish that deceased had learnt repairing of electronic items while working at his shop. Likewise, no one was examined, whose building may have been constructed by him while working as a mason. Learned Tribunal thus discarded the evidence led by the claimant in this regard being self-serving and treated him as an ordinary labourer. However, 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. As such, some amount of guess work has to be applied while assessing the income. 12. In the present case, the accident had taken place in the year 1998 and the testimony of the evidence led by the claimants that deceased was a Mason by profession has not been controved by the respondents and in these circumstances, the deceased has to be considered as a Mason, who is a skilled person and not as an ordinary labourer. Some amount of guess work too has to be applied while assessing the monthly income. Hon’ble Supreme Court in 2019 (5) RCR (Civil) 884, Chameli Devi and others Vs. Jivrali Mian and others, has assessed the AMANDEEP GOSAIN 2026.07.15 19:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment FAO-2166-2003 (O&M) - 6- 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. Accordingly, income of deceased is taken as Rs.3,000/- per month. 13. Deceased was 19 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/-). 14. Deceased was unmarried and as such, 50% of the earnings 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.2,100/- (Rs.4,200/- – Rs.2,100/-) and the annual loss of dependency comes out to Rs.25,200/- (Rs.2,100/- × 12). 15. Since deceased was 19 years of age, multiplier of 18 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.4,53,600/-. 16. In addition to this, claimant No.2 (mother 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, claimant No.1 (father of the deceased) is also held entitled to a sum of Rs.40,000/- on account of loss of filial consortium, in view of law laid down in Nanu Ram’s case (supra) and Satinder Kaur’s case (supra), which takes the compensation to Rs.5,63,600/-. AMANDEEP GOSAIN 2026.07.15 19:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment FAO-2166-2003 (O&M) - 7- 17. Accordingly, the compensation to be awarded to the claimants is assessed as under:- S.No. Under Head 1. Age of deceased 19 years 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.2,100/- 7. Monthly loss of dependency Rs.2,100/- 8. Annual loss of dependency Rs.25,200/- 9. Multiplier 18 10. Loss of dependency Rs.4,53,600/- 11. Compensation under conventional heads to claimant No.2- mother Rs.70,000/- 12. Compensation to claimant No.1-father (loss of filial consortium) Rs.40,000/- 13. Total Compensation Rs.5,63,600/- (Rounded off to Rs.5,64,000/-) 14. Interest 9% 18. Resultantly, the appeal in hand is partly accepted with costs and claimants are held entitled to a sum of Rs.5,64,000/- as compensation. The enhanced compensation thus comes out to Rs.4,68,000/- (Rs.5,64,000/- – Rs.96,000/-) 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. 22.08.1998 till realization payable by respondents No.1 to 3 jointly and severally. The enhanced compensation of Rs.4,68,000/- be paid to claimants (mother and father of the deceased) in equal shares alongwith proportionate interest. 19. Registry is directed to email the authenticated copy of the award to AMANDEEP GOSAIN 2026.07.15 19:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment FAO-2166-2003 (O&M) - 8- 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. 20. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. (YASHVIR SINGH RATHOR) 15.07.2026 JUDGE amandeep Whether speaking/reasoned. : Yes/No Whether Reportable. : Yes/No AMANDEEP GOSAIN 2026.07.15 19:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment