FAO-2565-2023 (O&M) 120 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA Manjit Kaur and Another Jagtar Singh and Others CORAM : HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA Present: Ms. Jyoti Kaur, Advocate for Mr. R.S.Waraich (Rana), Advocate for the appellants. NIDHI GUPTA, J. CM-9244-CII-2023 Prayer in this is for condonation of delay of 06 days in filing the accompanying appeal. 2. Heard. 3. For the reasons mentioned in the application which is supported by an affidavit of the applicant/appellant, th filing the accompanying appeal is condoned. CM-9245-CII-2023 Prayer in this application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act is for condonation of delay of 162 days in re 2023 (O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH -.- FAO Date of Decision : 20.04.202 and Another VERSUS Jagtar Singh and Others CORAM : HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA Ms. Jyoti Kaur, Advocate for Mr. R.S.Waraich (Rana), Advocate for the appellants. -.- NIDHI GUPTA, J. 2023 Prayer in this application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act is for condonation of delay of 06 days in filing the accompanying appeal. Heard. For the reasons mentioned in the application which is supported by an affidavit of the applicant/appellant, the same is allowed and delay of 06 days in filing the accompanying appeal is condoned. 2023 Prayer in this application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act is for condonation of delay of 162 days in re-filing the accompanying appeal. -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO-2565-2023 (O&M) Date of Decision : 20.04.2026 ....Appellants ....Respondents CORAM : HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA Mr. R.S.Waraich (Rana), Advocate for the appellants. application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act is for condonation of delay of 06 days in filing the accompanying appeal. For the reasons mentioned in the application which is supported by an e same is allowed and delay of 06 days in Prayer in this application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act filing the accompanying appeal. application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act For the reasons mentioned in the application which is supported by an e same is allowed and delay of 06 days in Prayer in this application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act TRIPTI SAINI 2026.04.22 17:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-2565-2023 (O&M) 2. Heard. 3. For the reasons mentioned in the application which is supported by an affidavit of the applicant/appellant, the same is allowed and delay of 162 days in re-filing the accompanying appeal is condoned. FAO-2565-2023 1. Present of compensation of Rs.13,34,720/ Tribunal, Fatehgarh Sahib (hereinafter referred to as “the learned Tribunal”) vide Award dated 19.05.2022 passed in MACT Claim Petiti filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”). The two claimants are the 43 deceased Dharampreet Singh, who was about 17 years old at the ti 2. Brief facts of the case are that the Tribunal on the basis of pleadings and evidence adduced by the parties had concluded that deceased Dharampreet Singh had died due to the injuries suffered by him in a motor vehicular accident that took place on 16.12.2018 at 6:00 PM due to rash and negligence driving of a Splendour Motor Cycle bearing Chassis No. MBLHAROA1JHL68524, Engine No. HA10AGJHLG8067 (hereinafter ‘the offending vehicle’) being driven and owned by respondent No.1 and insured by compensation has been awarded along with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum. The liability to pay said compensation as being fixed upon the respondent No.1 on account of the fact that respondent No.1 had got the offending ve after the accident. 2023 (O&M) Heard. For the reasons mentioned in the application which is supported by an affidavit of the applicant/appellant, the same is allowed and delay of 162 days in filing the accompanying appeal is condoned. 2023 Present appeal has been filed by the claimants seeking enhancement of compensation of Rs.13,34,720/- awarded by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Fatehgarh Sahib (hereinafter referred to as “the learned Tribunal”) vide Award dated 19.05.2022 passed in MACT Claim Petiti filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”). The two claimants are the 43-year-old mother and 48 deceased Dharampreet Singh, who was about 17 years old at the ti Brief facts of the case are that the Tribunal on the basis of pleadings and evidence adduced by the parties had concluded that deceased Dharampreet Singh had died due to the injuries suffered by him in a motor vehicular accident ok place on 16.12.2018 at 6:00 PM due to rash and negligence driving of a Splendour Motor Cycle bearing Chassis No. MBLHAROA1JHL68524, Engine No. HA10AGJHLG8067 (hereinafter ‘the offending vehicle’) being driven and owned by respondent No.1 and insured by compensation has been awarded along with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum. The liability to pay said compensation as being fixed upon the respondent No.1 on account of the fact that respondent No.1 had got the offending ve after the accident. -2- For the reasons mentioned in the application which is supported by an affidavit of the applicant/appellant, the same is allowed and delay of 162 days in filed by the claimants seeking enhancement awarded by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Fatehgarh Sahib (hereinafter referred to as “the learned Tribunal”) vide Award dated 19.05.2022 passed in MACT Claim Petition No.12 dated 24.01.2019 filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, (hereinafter referred to as “the old mother and 48-year-old father of the deceased Dharampreet Singh, who was about 17 years old at the time of accident. Brief facts of the case are that the Tribunal on the basis of pleadings and evidence adduced by the parties had concluded that deceased Dharampreet Singh had died due to the injuries suffered by him in a motor vehicular accident ok place on 16.12.2018 at 6:00 PM due to rash and negligence driving of a Splendour Motor Cycle bearing Chassis No. MBLHAROA1JHL68524, Engine No. HA10AGJHLG8067 (hereinafter ‘the offending vehicle’) being driven and owned by respondent No.1 and insured by responding No.2. The above compensation has been awarded along with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum. The liability to pay said compensation as being fixed upon the respondent No.1 on account of the fact that respondent No.1 had got the offending vehicle insured only For the reasons mentioned in the application which is supported by an affidavit of the applicant/appellant, the same is allowed and delay of 162 days in filed by the claimants seeking enhancement awarded by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Fatehgarh Sahib (hereinafter referred to as “the learned Tribunal”) vide on No.12 dated 24.01.2019 filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, (hereinafter referred to as “the old father of the me of accident. Brief facts of the case are that the Tribunal on the basis of pleadings and evidence adduced by the parties had concluded that deceased Dharampreet Singh had died due to the injuries suffered by him in a motor vehicular accident ok place on 16.12.2018 at 6:00 PM due to rash and negligence driving of a Splendour Motor Cycle bearing Chassis No. MBLHAROA1JHL68524, Engine No. HA10AGJHLG8067 (hereinafter ‘the offending vehicle’) being driven and responding No.2. The above compensation has been awarded along with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum. The liability to pay said compensation as being fixed upon the respondent No.1 on hicle insured only TRIPTI SAINI 2026.04.22 17:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-2565-2023 (O&M) 3. Ld. counsel for the appellants seeks enhancement of compensation by submitting that income of the deceased has been taken on the lower side as only ₹8100/- per month. It is submitted that the deceased had been wo and had been earning made on account of personal expenses is also on the higher side. Incorrect multiplier has been applied. Less compensation has been awarded under the conventional heads. It is accordingly prayed that the present appeal be allowed and the compensation payable to the appellants be enhanced. 4. No other argument is raised on behalf of ld. counsel for the appellants. 5. I have heard learned counsel and perused no merit in the submissions advanced on behalf of the appellants. 6. A perusal of the record reveals that it was the pleaded case of the appellants that prior to the accident, the deceased was working as a waiter and earning ₹12,000/ the appellants in this behalf. appellants to show the alleged income of the deceased. Although the claimants had examined PW3 Varinder Singh, who had deposed that he was working as contractor with various Tent Houses and that he provided said Tent Houses, however, the evidence of PW Tribunal as no documentary evidence was adduced by the claimants or PW3 to substantiate their oral and bald statements. Accordingly, the learned Tribunal ha assessed income of the deceased as an unskilled worker as to ₹8100) per month on the basis of the relevant Minimum Wage Notification. I find no error in the same. 2023 (O&M) Ld. counsel for the appellants seeks enhancement of compensation by submitting that income of the deceased has been taken on the lower side as only per month. It is submitted that the deceased had been wo and had been earning ₹12,000/- per month. It is further submitted that deduction made on account of personal expenses is also on the higher side. Incorrect multiplier has been applied. Less compensation has been awarded under the onal heads. It is accordingly prayed that the present appeal be allowed and the compensation payable to the appellants be enhanced. No other argument is raised on behalf of ld. counsel for the appellants. I have heard learned counsel and perused no merit in the submissions advanced on behalf of the appellants. A perusal of the record reveals that it was the pleaded case of the appellants that prior to the accident, the deceased was working as a waiter and ₹12,000/- per month. However, no evidence whatsoever has been led by the appellants in this behalf. No documentary evidence has been adduced by the appellants to show the alleged income of the deceased. Although the claimants had examined PW3 Varinder Singh, who had deposed that he was working as contractor with various Tent Houses and that he provided said Tent Houses, however, the evidence of PW Tribunal as no documentary evidence was adduced by the claimants or PW3 to substantiate their oral and bald statements. Accordingly, the learned Tribunal ha assessed income of the deceased as an unskilled worker as ₹8100) per month on the basis of the relevant Minimum Wage Notification. I find no error in the same. -3- Ld. counsel for the appellants seeks enhancement of compensation by submitting that income of the deceased has been taken on the lower side as only per month. It is submitted that the deceased had been working as a waiter per month. It is further submitted that deduction made on account of personal expenses is also on the higher side. Incorrect multiplier has been applied. Less compensation has been awarded under the onal heads. It is accordingly prayed that the present appeal be allowed and the compensation payable to the appellants be enhanced. No other argument is raised on behalf of ld. counsel for the appellants. I have heard learned counsel and perused the case file in detail. I find no merit in the submissions advanced on behalf of the appellants. A perusal of the record reveals that it was the pleaded case of the appellants that prior to the accident, the deceased was working as a waiter and per month. However, no evidence whatsoever has been led by No documentary evidence has been adduced by the appellants to show the alleged income of the deceased. Although the claimants had examined PW3 Varinder Singh, who had deposed that he was working as contractor with various Tent Houses and that he provided waiters for work in the said Tent Houses, however, the evidence of PW-3 was rejected by the learned Tribunal as no documentary evidence was adduced by the claimants or PW3 to substantiate their oral and bald statements. Accordingly, the learned Tribunal ha assessed income of the deceased as an unskilled worker as ₹8077.71 (rounded off ₹8100) per month on the basis of the relevant Minimum Wage Notification. I Ld. counsel for the appellants seeks enhancement of compensation by submitting that income of the deceased has been taken on the lower side as only rking as a waiter per month. It is further submitted that deduction made on account of personal expenses is also on the higher side. Incorrect multiplier has been applied. Less compensation has been awarded under the onal heads. It is accordingly prayed that the present appeal be allowed and No other argument is raised on behalf of ld. counsel for the appellants. the case file in detail. I find A perusal of the record reveals that it was the pleaded case of the appellants that prior to the accident, the deceased was working as a waiter and per month. However, no evidence whatsoever has been led by No documentary evidence has been adduced by the appellants to show the alleged income of the deceased. Although the claimants had examined PW3 Varinder Singh, who had deposed that he was working as waiters for work in the 3 was rejected by the learned Tribunal as no documentary evidence was adduced by the claimants or PW3 to substantiate their oral and bald statements. Accordingly, the learned Tribunal had ₹8077.71 (rounded off ₹8100) per month on the basis of the relevant Minimum Wage Notification. I TRIPTI SAINI 2026.04.22 17:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-2565-2023 (O&M) 7. Further, age of deceased was determined to be 17 years and 6 mont at the time of accident on the basis of his Matriculation Certificate Ex.P8, wherein date of birth of the deceased was reflected to be 22.05.2001. Accordingly, Tribunal had correctly made an addition of 40% towards future prospects; and correctly applied multiplier of 18. 8. As deceased was a Bachelor, Tribunal had correctly made a deduction of 50% towards personal expenses. Further under the conventional heads, Tribunal had awarded an amount of funeral expenses; and consortium; thereby awarding total compensation of Sr. No. Heads 1. Income 2. 40% of (i) above to be added as future 3. ½ of (ii) deducted as personal expenses of deceased 4. Compensation after multiplier of 18 is applied 5. Loss of Consortium 6. Loss of estate 7. Loss of expenses 8. Total 9. From the above facts, it is clear that a just and fair compensation in accordance with the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court has been awarded to the appellants. Nothing whatsoever has been shown to this Court that would merit enhancement of the compe beneficial legislation yet, as cautioned by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the same cannot be allowed to be treated as a windfall or a source of profit. Hon’ble 2023 (O&M) Further, age of deceased was determined to be 17 years and 6 mont at the time of accident on the basis of his Matriculation Certificate Ex.P8, wherein date of birth of the deceased was reflected to be 22.05.2001. Accordingly, Tribunal had correctly made an addition of 40% towards future prospects; and correctly d multiplier of 18. As deceased was a Bachelor, Tribunal had correctly made a deduction of 50% towards personal expenses. Further under the conventional heads, Tribunal had awarded an amount of ₹15,000/- towards loss of estate; al expenses; and ₹40,000/-(each) to both the claimants towards loss of consortium; thereby awarding total compensation of Heads Calculation (in Rs.) Income Rs.8100/ 40% of (i) above to be added as future prospects Rs.8,100+3,240 = Rs.11,340/ month ½ of (ii) deducted as personal expenses of deceased Rs.11,340 Compensation after multiplier of 18 is applied Rs.5,670x12x18 = Rs. Loss of Consortium Rs.40,000/ Loss of estate Rs.15,000/ Loss of expenses Rs.15,000/ Total Rs.13,34,720/ From the above facts, it is clear that a just and fair compensation in accordance with the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court has been awarded to the appellants. Nothing whatsoever has been shown to this Court that would merit enhancement of the compensation. No doubt Chapter beneficial legislation yet, as cautioned by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the same cannot be allowed to be treated as a windfall or a source of profit. Hon’ble -4- Further, age of deceased was determined to be 17 years and 6 mont at the time of accident on the basis of his Matriculation Certificate Ex.P8, wherein date of birth of the deceased was reflected to be 22.05.2001. Accordingly, Tribunal had correctly made an addition of 40% towards future prospects; and correctly As deceased was a Bachelor, Tribunal had correctly made a deduction of 50% towards personal expenses. Further under the conventional heads, Tribunal towards loss of estate; ₹15,000/- towards (each) to both the claimants towards loss of consortium; thereby awarding total compensation of ₹13,34,720, as follows: - Calculation (in Rs.) Rs.8100/- Rs.8,100+3,240 = Rs.11,340/- per month Rs.11,340-5,670/- = Rs.5670/- Rs.5,670x12x18 = Rs.12,24,720/- Rs.40,000/- x 2 = 80,000/- Rs.15,000/- Rs.15,000/- Rs.13,34,720/- From the above facts, it is clear that a just and fair compensation in accordance with the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court has been awarded to the appellants. Nothing whatsoever has been shown to this Court that would nsation. No doubt Chapter-12 of the Act is a beneficial legislation yet, as cautioned by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the same cannot be allowed to be treated as a windfall or a source of profit. Hon’ble Further, age of deceased was determined to be 17 years and 6 months at the time of accident on the basis of his Matriculation Certificate Ex.P8, wherein date of birth of the deceased was reflected to be 22.05.2001. Accordingly, Tribunal had correctly made an addition of 40% towards future prospects; and correctly As deceased was a Bachelor, Tribunal had correctly made a deduction of 50% towards personal expenses. Further under the conventional heads, Tribunal towards (each) to both the claimants towards loss of per - From the above facts, it is clear that a just and fair compensation in accordance with the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court has been awarded to the appellants. Nothing whatsoever has been shown to this Court that would 12 of the Act is a beneficial legislation yet, as cautioned by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the same cannot be allowed to be treated as a windfall or a source of profit. Hon’ble TRIPTI SAINI 2026.04.22 17:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-2565-2023 (O&M) Supreme Court in 64043 and “Divisional Controller K.S.R.T.C. Vs. Mahadeva Shetty and another” (2003) 7 SCC 197 reasonable, it should neither be a bonanza nor a source of profit but at the same time it should not be a pittance. 10. Accordingly, the present Appeal stands 11. Pending applicatio April 20, 2026 tripti Whether speaking/non Whether reportable 2023 (O&M) Supreme Court in “State of Haryana Vs. Jasbir Kaur” La “Divisional Controller K.S.R.T.C. Vs. Mahadeva Shetty and another” (2003) 7 SCC 197, has held that the amount of compensation should be just and reasonable, it should neither be a bonanza nor a source of profit but at the same time it should not be a pittance. Accordingly, the present Appeal stands Pending application(s), if any, also stand(s) disposed of. Whether speaking/non-speaking : Speaking Whether reportable : Yes/No -5- State of Haryana Vs. Jasbir Kaur” Law Finder Doc ID # “Divisional Controller K.S.R.T.C. Vs. Mahadeva Shetty and another” has held that the amount of compensation should be just and reasonable, it should neither be a bonanza nor a source of profit but at the same Accordingly, the present Appeal stands dismissed. n(s), if any, also stand(s) disposed of. (NIDHI GUPTA) JUDGE w Finder Doc ID # “Divisional Controller K.S.R.T.C. Vs. Mahadeva Shetty and another” has held that the amount of compensation should be just and reasonable, it should neither be a bonanza nor a source of profit but at the same TRIPTI SAINI 2026.04.22 17:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document