FAO-4166-2003 (O&M) - 1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 292 FAO-4166-2003 (O&M) Date of decision: 13.07.2026 Dr PRADEEP KAUR AND ANR. ....Appellants Versus GEETA JOLLY AND ORS ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHVIR SINGH RATHOR Present : Mr. Deep Inder Singh Walia, Advocate for the appellants. Mr. R.C. Gupta, Advocate for Insurance Company YASHVIR SINGH RATHOR. J.(Oral) 1. This appeal has been instituted by claimants against the Award dated 13.08.2003 passed in MACT case No.70 of 3.4.2001 by MACT, Chandigarh (for short “Tribunal”) in a petition under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 vide which a sum of Rs.18,20,000/- 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 Dr. Amrik Singh in a motor vehicle accident. 2. From the pleadings of parties, following issues were framed:- “1. Whether Dr. Amrik Singh died due to a road side accident which took place on 4.2.2001 near vilage Mamupur, District Ropar on account of rash and negligent driving of the truck No.HR-38E- 5469 by respondent No.2, owned by respondent No.1 and insured by respondent No.3 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? AMANDEEP GOSAIN 2026.07.15 09:13 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment FAO-4166-2003 (O&M) - 2- OPP 3. Whether the petition is incomplete, vague and does not disclose any cause of action of locus standi in favour of the claimants as alleged?OPR. 4. Whether respondent No.2 was without a valid and effective driving licence to drive the truck at the time of accident. 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.18,20,000/- 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.2 while driving the offending truck bearing No.HR-38E-5469, owned by respondent No.1 and insured with respondent No.3. No appeal or cross-objections have been filed by respondents, AMANDEEP GOSAIN 2026.07.15 09:13 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment FAO-4166-2003 (O&M) - 3- 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.18,20,000/- 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 future prospects have not been added to the monthly income of the deceased contrary to settled provisions of law. Learned counsel next argued that Tribunal has applied multiplier of 11 to the loss of dependency, whereas multiplier of 13 should have been applied. Compensation under conventional heads i.e. loss of consortium and funeral expenses is also on lower side and he prayed that compensation be awarded under all the heads and 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 Insurance Company 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 09:13 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment FAO-4166-2003 (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. As per version of claimants, deceased Amrik Singh was a doctor and was serving with State of Punjab. He was 49 and a half years of age. The claimants alleged that his monthly income was Rs.25,754/-. Claimant-Pradeep Kaur (wife) while appearing in the witness-box stated that monthly income of the deceased was Rs.26,111/-. In addition to this, claimants have also examined PW3 Bachittar Singh, who produced the salary certificate Ex. P3, which shows that monthly salary of the deceased was Rs.26,111/- and Tribunal assessed his monthly income to be Rs.26,000/- and the annual income came to Rs.3,12,000/-. Out of this annual income, a sum of Rs.67,130/- was deducted towards income tax, as AMANDEEP GOSAIN 2026.07.15 09:13 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment FAO-4166-2003 (O&M) - 5- form No.16 also reflected that there was deduction of Rs.51,530/- towards income tax, out of the salary of 10 months paid to him. As such, from the evidence produced on file, the monthly income of deceased is proved to be Rs.26,000/- and the annual income comes out to Rs.3,12,000/-. 12. Deceased was 49 and half years of age as also held by the Tribunal and he was in permanent Government employment and as such, 30% amount has to be added to the annual 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.4,05,600/- (Rs.3,12,000/- + Rs.93,600/-). Out of this annual income of Rs.4,05,600/-, a sum of Rs.90,000/- has to be deducted towards income tax and after deducting the same, the annual income comes to Rs.3,15,600/-. 13. Deceased has left behind two dependents i.e. wife and daughter, 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 annual loss of dependency comes out to Rs.2,10,400/- (Rs.3,15,600/- − Rs.1,05,200/-). 14. Since deceased was 49 and half years of age, multiplier of 13 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.27,35,200/- (Rs.2,10,400/- x 13). 15. 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, claimant No.2 (daughter of the deceased) is also held entitled to a AMANDEEP GOSAIN 2026.07.15 09:13 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment FAO-4166-2003 (O&M) - 6- sum of Rs.40,000/- on account of loss of parental 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.28,45,200/-. 16. Accordingly, the compensation to be awarded to the claimants is assessed as under:- S.No. Under Head 1. Age of deceased 49 and a half years 2. Monthly income of deceased Rs.26,000/- per month 3. Annual income of deceased Rs.3,12,000/- 4. Future prospects @ 30% Rs.93,600/- 5. Total annual income Rs.4,15,600/- 6. Deduction towards income tax Rs.90,000/- 7. Net annual income Rs.3,15,600/- 8. Number of dependents 2 9. Deduction towards personal expenses of the deceased Rs.1,05,200/- (1/3rd) 10. Annual loss of dependency Rs.2,10,400/- (Rs.3,15,600/- − Rs.1,05,200/-) 11. Multiplier 13 12. Loss of dependency Rs.27,35,200/- 13. Compensation under conventional heads to claimant No.1- wife Rs.70,000/- 14. Compensation to claimant No.2 (daughter) towards loss of parental consortium Rs.40,000/- 15. Total Compensation Rs.28,45,200/- (Rounded off to Rs.28,45,000/-) 16. Interest 9% 17. So far as the liability is concerned, under issue No.4, it has been held that the Insurance Company is liable to indemnify the insured. However, in the relief clause, liability has been fastened upon respondents No.1 and 2 only, instead of all the respondents i.e. respondents No.1 to 3 jointly and severally, which AMANDEEP GOSAIN 2026.07.15 09:13 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment FAO-4166-2003 (O&M) - 7- appears to be a typographical error. Even learned counsel for the claimants and Insurance Company have admitted that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal has already been paid by the Insurance Company before the Executing Court and as such, the liability to pay the enhanced compensation is not in dispute. 18. Resultantly, the appeal in hand is partly accepted with costs and claimants are held entitled to a sum of Rs.28,45,000/- as compensation. The enhanced compensation thus comes out to Rs.10,25,000/- (Rs.28,45,000/- - Rs.18,20,000/-) (rounded off to Rs.9,38,600/-) 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. 3.4.2001 till realization payable by respondents No.1 to 3 jointly and severally. Out of the enhanced compensation, a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- along with proportionate interest be paid to claimant No.2 (daughter 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 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) 13.07.2026 JUDGE amandeep Whether speaking/reasoned. : Yes/No Whether Reportable. : Yes/No AMANDEEP GOSAIN 2026.07.15 09:13 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment