271 FAO-3412-2005 (O&M) Date of decision: 08.07.2026 DHANPATI & ORS ....APPELLANTS VERSUS DHANI RAM & ORS ....RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHVIR SINGH RATHOR Present : Mr. Gaurav Tyagi, Advocate for Mr. S.S. Kharb, Advocate for the appellants. Mr. Gaurav Gupta, Advocate for respondent-Insurance Company. (Through VC). YASHVIR SINGH RATHOR. J.(Oral) 1. This appeal has been instituted by claimants against the Award dated 01.04.2005 passed in MACT case No.42 of 2003 decided by the MACT, JInd (for short “Tribunal”) in a petition under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 vide which a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- 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 Ram Kumar in a motor vehicle accident. 2. From the pleadings of parties, following issues were framed:- “1. Whether Ram Kumar son of Munshi died in a road accident which took place on 2.11.2003 on Bhiwani road, Jind, due to rash and negligent driving on the part of respondent No.1, the driver of canter No.HR-46A/2743, as alleged? OPP 2. Whether respondent No.1 did not hold a valid driving licence and if so, to what effect? OPR-3. 3. Whether the petitioners are entitled to an award of compensation and if so how much and from whom? OPP. VISHAL VARDHAN 2026.07.09 17:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-3412-2005 (O&M) - 2- 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.2,00,000/- 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 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.1 while driving the offending vehicle bearing No.HR-46-A-2743, owned by respondent No.2 and insured with respondent No.3 and they have been held liable to pay the compensation jointly and severally. 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.2,00,000/- has been awarded is based on VISHAL VARDHAN 2026.07.09 17:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 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. Learned counsel further contended that deceased was 50 years of age and multiplier of 10 has been applied whereas multiplier of 13 should have been awarded. 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 awarded under all the heads and same should be suitably enhanced. In support of his contentions, learned counsel for the appellant 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-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 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” VISHAL VARDHAN 2026.07.09 17:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 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 was a manufacturer and supplier of sweets to the various shops and was also running his own shop. He was 46 years of age and he used to earn about Rs.11,000-12,000/- per month. PW1- Bansi, stepped into the witness box and deposed that deceased was a halwai (Sweet Maker) by profession and was running his own shop. He further deposed that deceased used to supply sweets to other shopkeepers as well. The Tribunal after going through the evidence on file assessed the monthly income of the deceased to be Rs.2,500/- per month, which in my opinion is on lower side. The accident had taken place in the year 2003 and the version of claimants that deceased was running a sweet shop has gone uncontroverted and deceased was thus a skilled person and in such cases, the Court is required to ensure just compensation based on preponderance of probabilities. Where the deceased VISHAL VARDHAN 2026.07.09 17:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 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 2003 and it can be assumed that the deceased must be earning at least Rs.4,000/- per month while working as a Halwai (Sweet Maker). Learned Tribunal has thus gravely erred while assessing his monthly income to be Rs.2,500/- per month, which is on lower side. Accordingly, income of deceased is taken as Rs.4,000/- per month. 13. The Tribunal has held the age of the deceased to be 50 years as per the postmortem report placed on file. As such, 25% 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.5,000/- (Rs.4,000/- + Rs.1,000/-). 14. Deceased has left behind six dependents, and as such 1/4th 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.3,750/- (Rs.5,000 − Rs.1,250/-) and the annual loss of dependency comes out to Rs.45,000/- (Rs.3,750 × 12). VISHAL VARDHAN 2026.07.09 17:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 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.5,85,000/-. 16. 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 6 are also held entitled to a sum of Rs.40,000/- each on account of loss 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.8,55,000/-. 17. Accordingly, the compensation to be awarded to the claimants is assessed as under:- S.No. Under Head 1. Monthly income of deceased Rs.4,000/- per month 2. Age of deceased 50 years 3. Future prospects @ 25% Rs.1,000/- 4. Total income Rs.5,000/- 5. Number of dependents 6 6. Deduction towards personal expenses of the deceased Rs.1,250/- (1/4th) 7. Monthly loss of dependency Rs.3,750/- (Rs.5,000/- - Rs.1,250/-) 8. Annual loss of dependency Rs.45,000/- (Rs.3,750/- × 12) 9. Multiplier 13 10. Loss of dependency Rs.5,85,000/- (Rs.45,000/- × 13) 11. Compensation under conventional heads to claimant No.1- wife Rs.70,000/- 12. Compensation to five children (loss of filial and parental consortium) Rs.2,00,000/- (Rs.40,000/- × 5) VISHAL VARDHAN 2026.07.09 17:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 18. Resultantly, the appeal in hand is partly accepted with costs and claimants are held entitled to a sum of Rs.8,55,000/- as compensation. The enhanced compensation thus comes out to Rs.6,55,000/- (Rs.8,55,000/- − Rs.2,00,000/-) 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 till realization payable by respondents No.1 to 3 jointly and severally. Out of the enhanced compensation, a sum of Rs.50,000/- each along with proportionate interest be paid to claimants No.2 to 6 while balance amount be paid to claimant No.1 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. 08.07.2026 (YASHVIR SINGH RATHOR) Vishal Vardhan JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned. : Yes/No Whether Reportable. : Yes/No VISHAL VARDHAN 2026.07.09 17:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document