CM-17087-CII-2024 in/and FAO-3802-2001(O&M) Date of decision: 27.07.2026 LALA @ RAMA NAND AND OTHERS ....Appellants VERSUS RAMNATH SHISH RAM AND OTHERS ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHVIR SINGH RATHOR Present : Mr. R.K. Dhiman, Advocate for the appellants. Mr. Abhinav Mahant, AAG, Haryana for respondents No.2 and 3. ***** YASHVIR SINGH RATHOR. J.(Oral) CM-17087-CII-2024 1. The instant application has been filed under Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure for fixing actual date of hearing in the appeal, which is pending since 2001. 2. For the reasons mentioned in the application, the same is allowed and the main case is taken on board today itself. FAO-3802-2001 3. This appeal has been instituted by claimants against the Award dated 18.07.2001 passed in MACT case No.62 of 2000 by the MACT, Narnaul (for PRIYANKA THAKUR 2026.07.29 20:04 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document (for short “Act”) vide which a sum of Rs.1,87,000/- 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 Aman Kumar in a motor vehicle accident. 4. From the pleadings of parties, following issues were framed:- “1. Whether the accident had taken place as a result of rash and negligent driving of truck No.HR-35/1963 by respondent No.1 Ram Nath? OPP 2. To what amount of compensation claimants are entitled to and from whom?OPP 3. Relief.” 5. Thereafter, the parties led evidence in support of their case. 6. After hearing the parties and going through the material on the file, learned Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.1,87,000/- as compensation to the claimants alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of claim petition till realization. 7. Feeling aggrieved, the appeal in hand has been preferred. The material on file has been perused and parties have been heard. 8. 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 truck bearing No.HR-35/1963, owned by respondent No.2. No appeal or cross- objections have been filed by respondents, challenging the said finding and PRIYANKA THAKUR 2026.07.29 20:04 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 9. Learned counsel for the appellants argued that the impugned award vide which compensation of Rs.1,87,000/- 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 who should have been treated as a skilled person. Future prospects have also not been added to the monthly income of the deceased contrary to settled provisions of law. No compensation has been awarded under the head of loss of estate and only a sum of Rs.5,000/- has been awarded for loss of consortium and Rs.2,000/- for funeral expenses. Learned counsel submitted that the compensation awarded under the conventional heads is inadequate and he prayed that appropriate compensation be awarded under all the heads by suitably enhancing the amount. 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, 2025 ACJ 1624 Karuna Parmar Vs. Prakash Sinha and others and 2024 SCC Online SC 3692, Baby Sakshi Greola Vs. Manzoor Ahmad Simon. 10. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondents No.2 and 3 argued that the award in question is well reasoned and justified. The material on file has PRIYANKA THAKUR 2026.07.29 20:04 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document no interference in the same is thus called for. 11. 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 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. 12. Learned Tribunal while assessing the compensation held in Para No.16 as under:- “From the evidence led by the claimants, it is proved that the deceased was the adopted son of Lala @ Ramanand. It is further proved that he was married to Smt. Chanderkala one month prior to PRIYANKA THAKUR 2026.07.29 20:04 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document a child marriage. The deceased at the time of marriage was 14 years 8 months old. At the time of arguments learned counsel for the claimants had also shown me the photo album of the marriage. From the disability certificate placed on file it is further proved that Lala @ Ramanand-claimant is handicap due to polio. It means Lala Ram is unfit to cultivate the land and for that reason, it is to be believed that the deceased used to help him in cultivation of land. Lala Ram has admitted in his chief that the deceased at the time of death was student of 8th standard. Meaning thereby he had no independent source of income and was only pursuing his studies. But the fact that after 3/4 years he would have started earning independently to support his family cannot be ignored. The income of the deceased for the purpose of determination of compensation is thus taken as Rs.1500/-. Had he been alive, he would have spent 1/3rd of his income to meet his personal expenses. Therefore, the dependency of the claimant upon the deceased is assessed at Rs.1,000/- per month. Keeping in view the age of the deceased, the multiplier of 15 shall be suitable as provided under Second Schedule to Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicle Act. If that multiplier is supplier, the compensation on calculation come to Rs.1,80,000/-. Besides that the claimants are entitled to Rs.2000 as funeral expenses and widow is entitled to Rs.5,000/- on account of loss of consortium. In total, the claimants are entitled to Rs.1,87,000/-. This issue is answered accordingly.” 13. As such, Tribunal had come to the conclusion that deceased was only 14 years and 8 months of age at the time of marriage and his marriage was performed with claimant No.2 when he was a child. It has also been held that claimant No.1 Lala @ Rama Nand was a handicap person due to Polio and deceased used to help him in cultivating the land and besides this, he was also a PRIYANKA THAKUR 2026.07.29 20:04 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document and after deducting 1/3rd amount for personal and living expenses, dependency was held to be Rs.1,000/- per month and after applying multiplier of 15, a sum of Rs.1,80,000/- was assessed as compensation. In addition to this, a sum of Rs.2,000/- was awarded for funeral expenses and a sum of Rs.5,000/- for loss of consortium and a sum of Rs.1,87,000/- in all was awarded as compensation. 14. Hon’ble Supreme Court in Karuna Parmar’s case (supra) while relying upon judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Baby Sakshi Greola’s case (supra), has held that minimum wages payable to a skilled worker in the concerned State have to be taken into consideration while assessing income in the case of a child because that would be the minimum amount which a child would have earned on attaining the age of majority. In the present case, the deceased was about 15 years of age and the accident took place on 09.06.2000 and during those days, minimum wages earned by a skilled person were around Rs.3,500/- per month. Accordingly, income of deceased is taken as Rs.3,500/- per month. 15. Since deceased was about 15 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/-). 16. The claim petition has been filed by father, who is a handicap person and wife of the deceased. As per law laid down in 2025 Livelaw (SC) 309, Sadhana Tomar & Ors. Vs. Ashok Kushwaha & Ors, father has to be treated as PRIYANKA THAKUR 2026.07.29 20:04 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document left behind only two dependents 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). After deducting the same, the monthly loss of dependency comes out to Rs.3,266/- (Rs.4,900/- − Rs.1,634/-) and the annual loss of dependency comes out to Rs.39,192/- (Rs.3,266/- × 12). 17. Hon’ble Supreme Court while deciding Civil Appeal No.14756 of 2025 titled Devendra Kumar Tripathi & Ors. v. The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. & Anr. vide judgment dated 15.12.2025, while distinguishing the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Baby Sakshi Greola’s case (supra), has held that in cases involving the death of a minor child, the claim for compensation stands on a different footing from cases relating to permanent disability suffered by a minor. Relying upon the principle laid down in (2013) 9 SCC 65, Reshma Kumari v. Madan Mohan, Hon’ble Supreme Court held that for determining compensation in cases of fatal accidents involving minors, the appropriate multiplier is 15 and not 18, which was applied in Baby Sakshi Greola’s case(supra) in the context of permanent disability. Accordingly, in the present case, the Tribunal has rightly applied the multiplier of 15 as the deceased was about 15 years of age at the time of the accident. After applying the multiplier of 15 in view of the guidelines laid down in Devendra Kumar Tripathi’s case (supra), the total loss of dependency comes out to Rs.5,87,880/- (Rs.39,192/- × 15). 18. In addition to this, claimant No.2 (wife of the deceased) is held PRIYANKA THAKUR 2026.07.29 20:04 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-3802-2001(O&M) - 8- 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.1 (father of the deceased) is also held entitled to a sum of Rs.40,000/- on account of loss of filial 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.6,97,880/- (Rs.5,87,880/- + Rs.1,10,000/-). 19. Accordingly, the compensation to be awarded to the claimants is assessed as under:- S. No. Under Head Amount 1. Age of deceased 14 years 9 months 2. Monthly income of deceased Rs.3,500/- per month 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 (1/3rd) Rs.1,634/- 7. Monthly loss of dependency Rs.3,266/- 8. Annual loss of dependency Rs.39,192/- (Rs.3,266/- × 12) 9. Multiplier 15 10. Loss of dependency Rs.5,87,880/- (Rs.39,192/- × 15) 11. Compensation under conventional heads to claimant No.2- wife Rs.70,000/- 12. Compensation to claimant No. (father) towards filial consortium Rs.40,000/- Total Compensation Rs.6,97,880/- (rounded off to Rs.6,98,000/-) 20. Resultantly, the appeal in hand is partly accepted with costs and claimants are held entitled to a sum of Rs.6,98,000/- as compensation. The enhanced compensation thus comes out to Rs.5,11,000/- (Rs.6,98,000/- − PRIYANKA THAKUR 2026.07.29 20:04 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of claim petition i.e. 28.07.2000 till realization payable by respondent No.2. Out of the enhanced compensation, a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- along with proportionate interest be paid to claimant No.1 (father) while balance amount be paid to claimant No.2 (wife) along with proportionate interest. 21. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. (YASHVIR SINGH RATHOR) 27.07.2026 JUDGE Priyanka Thakur Whether speaking/reasoned. : Yes/No Whether Reportable. : Yes/No PRIYANKA THAKUR 2026.07.29 20:04 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document