FAO-2145-2023 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO-2145-2023 (O&M) Date of decision:30.07.2026 Sunita Rani ..... Appellant Versus Kasam Khan and another ..... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSH BUNGER ***** Present: Mr. Dheeraj Narula, Advocate, for the appellant. Mr. Ritik Mohindroo, Advocate, for Mr. Vishal Garg, Advocate, for the respondent ***** HARSH BUNGER J. (ORAL) CM-7936-CII-2023: Present application is filed seeking condonation of delay of 65 days in filing the appeal i.e., FAO-2145-2023. For the reasons mentioned in the application, delay of 65 days in filing the appeal i.e., FAO-2145-2023 is condoned. Application is, accordingly, disposed of. FAO-2145-2023 (O&M) 1. The present appeal has been filed by the appellant-claimant seeking enhancement of compensation of Rs.14,00,056/- awarded by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sirsa (hereinafter referred to as the 'Tribunal') vide award dated 06.10.2022 passed in MACP Case No.36 of 2017 filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (in short ‘1988 Act’). DINESH 2026.07.31 15:45 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-2145-2023 (O&M) -2- 2. Briefly, the appellant-claimant filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the 1988 Act before the learned Tribunal on the plea that on 11.11.2016, Rajender @ Rajendra (since deceased) alongwith driver Anil Kumar was going to Bahal from Sirsa in Pick Up bearing No.HR-57A-5237 (hereinafter referred to as the “victim vehicle”), which was being driven by Anil Kumar at a moderate speed. It was averred that at about 5:00 PM, when they reached 1 Kilometer ahead from village Gandawas towards village Jhappu Kalan, then a Trolla No. RJ-19-GE-9156 (hereinafter referred to as the “offending vehilce”), which was being driven by respondent No.1 (Kasam Khan) at a high speed in a rash and negligent manner, struck his Trolla into the pick up, after coming on the wrong side. In the accident, Rajender and Anil Kumar sustained serious multiple injuries on their persons and they were taken to General Hospital, Siwani, where Anil Kumar was treated for his injuries, while Rajedner was declared dead. His post mortem was conducted on 12.11.2016. A case FIR No.238 dated 11.11.2016, under Sections 279, 304-A and 337 IPC was registered against Kasam Khan on the basis of the statement of the brother of the deceased. 3. The claim petition was contested by respondent No.1-Kasam Khan (owner & driver of offending vehicle) as well as Insurance Company (respondent No.2.) 4. Learned Tribunal on the basis of the pleadings and evidence (oral as well as documentary) available on record, concluded that the accident had taken place due to rash and negligent of the offending vehicle by respondent No.1 (Kasam Khan), on account of which Rajender has lost his life in the said accident. 5. Learned Tribunal granted the compensation of Rs.14,00,056/- DINESH 2026.07.31 15:45 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-2145-2023 (O&M) -3- alongwith interest @6% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till its realization. Further, the respondents were jointly and severally held to be liable to pay the compensation. However, it was further held that respondent No.2-Insurance Company is liable to keep the owner of the offending vehicle indemnified. 6. The present appeal has been filed by the appellant-claimant seeking enhancement of compensation on the following two grounds:- “i) that learned Tribunal has wrongly assessed the income of the deceased @ Rs.9500/- per month, whereas he was earning a sum of Rs.15,000/- per month. ii) that learned Tribunal has wrongly taken the age of the deceased as 42 years, whereas the deceased was 37 years of age at the time of his death. Accordingly, learned Tribunal has wrongly granted the future prospects of 25% and even the multiplier has been wrongly applied as 14 instead of 15 by taking his age as 37 years.” 7. No other argument has been raised on behalf of appellant- claimant. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the paper-book with their able assistance. 9. A perusal of the record of the case shows that though it was the pleaded case of the appellant that the deceased (Rajender) was working as a conductor/helper on Pick up bearing No.HR-57A-5237 with Anil Kumar and was earning Rs.15,000/- per month; however, no evidence in that regard has come on record. Accordingly, the income of the deceased was assessed as Rs.9500/- per month by considering him as unskilled daily wage worker in Sirsa (Haryana). 10. I see no error in the approach of learned Tribunal in assessing the income of the deceased on the basis of income of unskilled daily wage DINESH 2026.07.31 15:45 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-2145-2023 (O&M) -4- worker, especially considering the fact that no evidence regarding the income of the deceased has been brought on record. 11. As regards the age of the deceased (Rajender) is concerned, although the appellant claims that at the time of accident, the deceased was 37 years of age however, learned Tribunal has determined the age of the deceased as 42 years by observing as under:- “36. After hearing the rival contentions, it transpires that as per the averments in the petition, the age of the deceased at the time of accident was 37 years. As per the PMR the age is recorded as 42 years, whereas as per the copy of the adhar card-Ex.P26, the date of birth of Rajender has been mentioned as 01.01.1979. In Nan Kauris petition, the age of the sons is mentioned as 25 years and 24 years. Therefore even if the minimum marriage age of 21 years is considered, the deceased would be at least 46 years of age as on the date of the accident. In order to ascertain the age of the deceased in this case therefore, the average of 37 years 10 months as per the Aadhar card and 46 years as per other documents is taken as 42 years on the date of accident i.e. 11.11.2016.” 12. Learned counsel for the appellant has failed to controvert the above extracted observations made by learned Tribunal, while assessing the age of the deceased (Rajender). Even before this Court, no material has been shown, which may indicate that the deceased was 37 years of age on the date of his death. 13. In view of the above, this Court has no other option but to rely upon the findings returned by learned Tribunal that the age of the deceased at the time of his death, was 42 years. Further, considering the age of the deceased as 42 years (on the date of accident) and considering the fact that the deceased was self-employed, learned Tribunal has correctly made an addition of 25% towards future prospects and correctly applied the DINESH 2026.07.31 15:45 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-2145-2023 (O&M) -5- multiplier of 14. Furthermore, learned Tribunal has made a deduction of 1/3rd towards personal expenses and maintenance of the deceased. 14. Learned Tribunal has further awarded an amount of Rs.15,000/- towards last rites and transportation and another sum of Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate. The appellant has been further held entitled to spousal consortium @Rs.40,000/-. Accordingly, learned Tribunal has granted the following compensation to the appellant:- Head Compensation awarded i) Loss of dependency, last rites and transportation of dead body of deceased and loss of estate Rs.13,30,056/- + Rs.15,000/- + Rs.15,000/- Rs.13,60,056,40/- ii) Loss of Consortium: a) Spousal Consortium to claimant Sunita being wife of deceased +Rs.40,000/- Total amount of Compensation:(i)+(ii) Rs.40,000/- Rs.14,00,056/- 15. On the aforesaid amount of compensation, the learned Tribunal has also granted interest @6% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till its realization. 16. From the above facts, it is clear that a just and fair compensation has been awarded to the appellant. Nothing whatsoever has been shown to this Court that would merit enhancement of the compensation granted to the appellant. 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. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in 'State of Haryana & Another v. Jasbir Kaur & Others' Law Finder Doc ID #64043 and Divisional Controller K.S.R.T.C. v. Mahadeva Shetty', (2003) 7 SCC 197, has held that the amount of DINESH 2026.07.31 15:45 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-2145-2023 (O&M) -6- 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. 17. In view of the above discussion, the present appeal stands dismissed. 18. All the pending application(s), if any, shall also stand closed. 30.07.2026 (HARSH BUNGER) dinesh JUDGE 1. Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No 2. Whether reportable : Yes/No DINESH 2026.07.31 15:45 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document