302 FAO-3181-2005 (O&M) Date of decision: 13.07.2026 SANTOSH KUMARI AND OTHERS ....APPELLANTS VERSUS SUNIL KUMAR AND OTHERS ....RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHVIR SINGH RATHOR Present : Mr. Vijay Lath, Advocate for the appellants. Mr. D.K. Dogra, Advocate for respondent No.3-Insurance Company. YASHVIR SINGH RATHOR. J.(Oral) CM-17905-CII-2024 1. The present application has been filed under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking exemption from filing an application for bringing on record the legal representatives of respondent No. 2. 2. For the reasons stated in the application, the same is allowed and appellants are exempted from filing an application for bringing on record the legal representatives of respondent No.2. 3. Application stands disposed of. FAO-3181-2005 4. Notice was issued to respondent No.1, who is owner of the offending vehicle by way of publication in newspaper for 09.04.2026. However, none has appeared on his behalf and he is proceeded ex parte. PRIYANKA THAKUR 2026.07.15 19:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 21.12.2004 passed in MACT case No.14 of 15.01.2004 decided by the MACT, Rupnagar (for short “Tribunal”) in a petition under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 vide which a sum of Rs.2,45,000/- has been awarded as compensation to the claimants 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 Surinder Kumar @ Billa in a motor vehicle accident. 6. From the pleadings of parties, following issues were framed:- “1. Whether Surinder Kumar @ Billa son of Shiv Kumar died in the motor vehicle accident caused by Rakesh son of Nathi Ram respondent No.2 while driving the tippar No.HR-38-C-7276 in a rash and negligent manner? OPP. 2. Whether the claimants are entitled for the compensation as prayed for? OPP. 3. Whether the driver driving the said vehicle was not holding a valid and effective driving licence at the time of said accident? OPR. 4. Relief.” 7. Thereafter, the parties led evidence in support of their case. 8. After hearing the parties and going through the material on the file, learned Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.2,45,000/- as compensation to the claimants alongwith interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of claim petition till realization. 9. Feeling aggrieved, the appeal in hand has been preferred. The material on file has been perused and parties have been heard. 10. The only issue required to be determined in the present appeal relates PRIYANKA THAKUR 2026.07.15 19:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 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 vehicle bearing No.HR-38-C-7276, owned by respondent No.1 and insured with respondent No.3. However, it was held that the driving licence of the driver was fake and that it constituted a violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy and Insurance Company was exonerated of its liability and it was ordered that respondent No.3-Insurance Company shall first of all make the payment of the awarded amount to the claimants and thereafter, it shall have a right to recover the same from respondents No.1 and 2. 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. 11. Learned counsel for the appellants argued that the impugned award vide which compensation of Rs.2,45,000/- 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. Learned counsel further contended that deceased was 20 years of age and multiplier of 15 has been applied whereas multiplier of 18 should have been applied to the loss of dependency. No compensation has been paid under conventional heads i.e. loss of consortium and loss of estate and compensation of Rs.5000/- awarded for funeral expenses is also on lower side and he prayed that PRIYANKA THAKUR 2026.07.15 19:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 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. 12. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.3-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. 13. 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 PRIYANKA THAKUR 2026.07.15 19:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 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. 14. As per version of claimants, deceased namely Surinder Kumar @ Billa was son of claimants No.1 and 2 and brother of claimants No.3 and 4. He was 20 years of age and was earning Rs.7,000/- per month while working with a contractor. However, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that no cogent and convincing evidence has been led to establish the income of the deceased and Tribunal assessed his monthly income to be Rs.2,000/-. 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. 15. 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.3,500/- per month while working with a contractor. Learned Tribunal has thus gravely erred while PRIYANKA THAKUR 2026.07.15 19:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Accordingly, income of deceased is taken as Rs.3,500/- per month. 16. As per post-mortem report Ex.P2, the age of deceased was 22 years but his birth certificate has also been led in evidence, which shows that his date of birth was 04.04.1984 and Tribunal has rightly taken into consideration the birth certificate and held him to be 20 years of age at the time of accident. Since, deceased was 20 years of age, 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.4,900/- (Rs.3,500/- + Rs.1,400/-). 17. The claim petition has been filed by parents and two younger brothers of the deceased. However, during the lifetime of the father, younger brothers cannot be termed as dependents upon their elder brother. Accordingly, claimants No.3 and 4 are not entitled to any compensation except for loss of consortium. As per law laid down in 2025 Livelaw (SC) 309, Sadhana Tomar & Ors. Vs. Ashok Kushwaha & Ors, father has to be treated as financially dependent upon his deceased son. In the present case, the deceased has left behind only two dependents namely his parents and as such, 50% 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.2,450/- (Rs.4,900 − Rs.2,450/-) and the annual loss of dependency comes out to Rs.29,400/- (Rs.2,450/- × 12). 18. Since, deceased was 20 years of age, multiplier of 18 has to be applied in view of the guidelines laid down in Sarla Verma’s case (supra), and PRIYANKA THAKUR 2026.07.15 19:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document (Rs.29,400/- x 18). 19. In addition to this, claimant No.1 (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.2 is held entitled to a sum of Rs.40,000/- on account of loss of filial consortium and claimants No.3 and 4 are also held entitled to a sum of Rs.40,000/- each on account of loss of 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.7,19,200/-. 20. Accordingly, the compensation to be awarded to the claimants is assessed as under:- S.No. Under Head Amount 1. Monthly income of deceased Rs.3,500/- per month 2. Age of deceased 20 years 3. Future prospects @ 40% Rs.1,400/- 4. Total income Rs.4,900/- 5. Number of dependents 2 6. Deduction towards personal expenses of the deceased Rs.2,450/- (50%) 7. Monthly loss of dependency Rs.2,450/- (Rs.4,900 − Rs.2,450/- 8. Annual loss of dependency Rs.29,400/- (Rs.2,450/- × 12) 9. Multiplier 18 10. Loss of dependency Rs.5,29,200/-. (Rs.29,400/- × 18) 11. Compensation under conventional heads to claimant No.1- mother Rs.70,000/- 12. Compensation to claimant No.2-father (loss of filial consortium) Rs.40,000/- PRIYANKA THAKUR 2026.07.15 19:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 21. Resultantly, the appeal in hand is partly accepted with costs and claimants are held entitled to a sum of Rs.7,19,200/- as compensation. The enhanced compensation thus comes out to Rs.4,74,200/- (Rs.7,19,200/- − Rs.2,45,000/-) (rounded off to Rs. 4,74,000/-) 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. 15.01.2004 till realization. Out of the enhanced compensation, a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- along with proportionate interest be paid to claimant No.2, a sum of Rs.40,000/- each along with proportionate interest be paid to claimants No.3 and 4 while balance amount be paid to claimant No.1 along with proportionate interest. 22. It is pertinent to mention that the driving licence of the driver was found to be fake and Insurance Company has been directed to pay the amount to the claimants with a right to recover the same from the owner/insured and driver. However, the contract of insurance is between the owner and the Insurance Company and not between the driver and the Insurance Company and as such, Insurance Company can recover the amount only from the owner and it is ordered that Insurance Company after making payment of the compensation including enhanced compensation shall be entitled to recover the same from the owner/insured alongwith interest @ 6% per annum, from the date of deposit till realization, without filing a separate suit. PRIYANKA THAKUR 2026.07.15 19:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 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. 24. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. 13.07.2026 (YASHVIR SINGH RATHOR) Priyanka Thakur JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned. : Yes/No Whether Reportable. : Yes/No PRIYANKA THAKUR 2026.07.15 19:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document