FAO-5424 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 127 Pinki and others Amarjeet Singh Gill CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA Present: - NIDHI GUPTA, J. 1. the Award dated Claims Tribunal, Tribunal’) whereby the claim petition bearing MAC 14.02.2020 Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, granted compensation of widow; ii) minor son and i was stated to be 2. basis of pleadings and evidence adduced before it concluded that deceased-Sanjay vehicular accident that took place on to the rash and negligent driving of W-0008 (hereinafter ‘the offending No. 2; owned by respondent No. 1 and insured by respondent No. 3 5424-2024 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Pinki and others Versus Amarjeet Singh Gill and others CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA Mr. Rohit Mittal, Advocate for the appellants. NIDHI GUPTA, J. (ORAL) Challenge in the present appeal filed by the claimants is to the Award dated 29.07.2024 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Gurugram (hereinafter referred to as ‘the learned Tribunal’) whereby the claim petition bearing MAC 14.02.2020, filed by the appellant-claimants under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, has been allowed; and the granted compensation of ₹27,87,616/-. The 0 widow; ii) minor son and iii) old parents of was stated to be 32 years old at the time of accident. Brief facts of the case are that the learned Tribunal on the basis of pleadings and evidence adduced before it concluded that Sanjay, had died due to the injuries vehicular accident that took place on 20.12.2021 at about 10:00 PM, rash and negligent driving of Car bearing registration No. PB (hereinafter ‘the offending vehicle No. 2; owned by respondent No. 1 and insured by respondent No. 3 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO-5424-2024 (O&M) Date of Decision: 11.08.2025 .…Appellants ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA Mr. Rohit Mittal, Advocate for the appellants. Challenge in the present appeal filed by the claimants is to passed by the learned Motor Accident (hereinafter referred to as ‘the learned Tribunal’) whereby the claim petition bearing MACP-62-2022 dated claimants under Section 166 of the has been allowed; and the claimants have been . The 04 claimants are the: i) old parents of deceased-Sanjay Kumar who years old at the time of accident. Brief facts of the case are that the learned Tribunal on the basis of pleadings and evidence adduced before it concluded that due to the injuries suffered by him in a motor 20.12.2021 at about 10:00 PM, due Car bearing registration No. PB-29- vehicle’) being driven by respondent No. 2; owned by respondent No. 1 and insured by respondent No. 3- Challenge in the present appeal filed by the claimants is to passed by the learned Motor Accident (hereinafter referred to as ‘the learned claimants under Section 166 of the ve been claimants are the: i) who Brief facts of the case are that the learned Tribunal on the basis of pleadings and evidence adduced before it concluded that in a motor due being driven by respondent RISHU KATARIA 2025.08.18 18:49 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. FAO-5424 Insurance Company. along with interest @ petition till actual reali the amount of compensation jointly and severally. 3. compensation on the ground that income of the deceased have produced from which it was evident that the deceased was earning month. It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant deceased was also doing some no proof regarding ‘other work’ i.e. being done by the deceased was produced by the appellant learned counsel for the appellant ‘other work’ being done by the deceased. correctly assessed 4. awarded by the learned Tribu accordingly prayed that the impugned Award be modified as above. 5. the case file in great detail. 6. appellants. Tribunal had awarded compensation to the appellant Sr. No. 1. 2. 5424-2024 (O&M) -2- Insurance Company. Learned Tribunal awarded compensation as above along with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing the claim petition till actual realization; and the respondents were held liable to pay the amount of compensation jointly and severally. Learned counsel for the appellants seeks enhancement of compensation on the ground that the learned Tribunal had assessed the income of the deceased on lower side. It is submitted that the have produced the salary slips of the deceased as Ex. P which it was evident that the deceased was earning month. It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant deceased was also doing some ‘other work no proof regarding ‘other work’ i.e. being done by the deceased was produced by the appellant-claimants before the learned Tribunal. In fact learned counsel for the appellants is unable to ‘other work’ being done by the deceased. assessed by the learned Tribunal as Learned counsel further submits that nothing has been awarded by the learned Tribunal towards loss of love and affection. accordingly prayed that the impugned Award be modified as above. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant the case file in great detail. I find no merit in the submissions made on A perusal of the impugned Award reveals that the learned Tribunal had awarded compensation to the appellant Heads of claim Income ₹12,885/ 40% future prospectus ₹61,848/ Learned Tribunal awarded compensation as above % per annum from the date of filing the claim ; and the respondents were held liable to pay the amount of compensation jointly and severally. Learned counsel for the appellants seeks enhancement of the learned Tribunal had assessed the It is submitted that the claimants the salary slips of the deceased as Ex. P-2 and Ex. P-3, which it was evident that the deceased was earning ₹12,885/- per month. It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that the other work’. However, it is admitted that no proof regarding ‘other work’ i.e. being done by the deceased was before the learned Tribunal. In fact, unable to apprise as to what is the ‘other work’ being done by the deceased. As such, income has been by the learned Tribunal as ₹12,855/- per month. submits that nothing has been nal towards loss of love and affection. It is accordingly prayed that the impugned Award be modified as above. I have heard learned counsel for the appellants and perused submissions made on behalf of the perusal of the impugned Award reveals that the learned Tribunal had awarded compensation to the appellant-claimants as under:- 12,885/- x 12= 1,54,620/- per annum 61,848/- Learned Tribunal awarded compensation as above % per annum from the date of filing the claim ; and the respondents were held liable to pay Learned counsel for the appellants seeks enhancement of the learned Tribunal had assessed the claimants 3, per the admitted that no proof regarding ‘other work’ i.e. being done by the deceased was , what is the As such, income has been submits that nothing has been It is behalf of the perusal of the impugned Award reveals that the learned RISHU KATARIA 2025.08.18 18:49 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. FAO-5424 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 7. awarded a sum of consortium which just and fair. 8. compensation has been awarded to the appellant shown to this Court that would merit interference with the impugned Award. No doubt Chapter cautioned by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the same cannot be allowed to be treated as a windfall State of Haryana & Another Vs. Jasbir Kaur & Others Doc ID # 64043 MahadevShetty’, (2003) 7 SCC 197 compensation should be jus bonanza nor a source of profit but at the same time it should not be a pittance. Thus, all that has to be determined in the facts of a given case is, that the compensation accorded is ‘just’. In my considered view, the present case, the learned Tribunal has awarded a very ‘just’ compensation, which is in accordance with the law laid down by the 5424-2024 (O&M) -3- 1/4th deducted as personal expenses of the deceased ₹1,54,620+ 61,848/ deduction 1/4th comes to Compensation after applying multiplier of 16 ₹1,62,351/ Loss of love & affection. ₹15,000/ Transportation and funeral expenses ₹15,000/ Loss of Spousal, Filial and parental consortium ₹ 1,60,000/ Total compensation ₹27,87,616/ In view of the above, it is clear the learned Tribunal had awarded a sum of ₹1,60,000/- towards loss of Spousal, Filial and parental consortium; and ₹15,000/- under the Head loss of love and affection which just and fair. From the above facts, it is clear that a very just and fair compensation has been awarded to the appellant shown to this Court that would merit interference with the impugned Award. 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 Supreme Court in State of Haryana & Another Vs. Jasbir Kaur & Others Doc ID # 64043 and Divisional Controller K.S.R.T.C. Vs. MahadevShetty’, (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. Thus, all that has to be determined in the facts of a given case is, that the compensation accorded is ‘just’. In my considered view, the present case, the learned Tribunal has awarded a very ‘just’ compensation, which is in accordance with the law laid down by the 1,54,620+ 61,848/- = 2,16,468/- after deduction 1/4th comes to ₹1,62,351/- 1,62,351/- x 16= 25,97,616/- 15,000/- 15,000/- 1,60,000/- 27,87,616/- , it is clear the learned Tribunal had towards loss of Spousal, Filial and parental under the Head loss of love and affection From the above facts, it is clear that a very just and fair compensation has been awarded to the appellants. Nothing has been shown to this Court that would merit interference with the impugned 12 of the Act is a beneficial legislation yet, as cautioned by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the same cannot be allowed to or a source of profit. Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Haryana & Another Vs. Jasbir Kaur & Others, Law Finder Divisional Controller K.S.R.T.C. Vs. has held that the amount of t and reasonable, it should neither be a bonanza nor a source of profit but at the same time it should not be a pittance. Thus, all that has to be determined in the facts of a given case is, that the compensation accorded is ‘just’. In my considered view, in the present case, the learned Tribunal has awarded a very ‘just’ compensation, which is in accordance with the law laid down by the , it is clear the learned Tribunal had towards loss of Spousal, Filial and parental under the Head loss of love and affection RISHU KATARIA 2025.08.18 18:49 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. FAO-5424 Hon’ble Supreme Court and therefore, does not warrant the interference of this Court. In the case of Thomas & Others Court has held that misplaced sympathy, generosity and benevolence cannot be the guiding factor for determining the compensation 9. that merits interference dismissed. 10. 11.08.2025 rishu 5424-2024 (O&M) -4- Hon’ble Supreme Court and therefore, does not warrant the interference of this Court. In the case of General Manager, KSR Thomas & Others, 1994 Volume-II SCC 176 Court has held that misplaced sympathy, generosity and benevolence cannot be the guiding factor for determining the compensation In view of the discussion above, I find no that merits interference with the impugned Award. . Pending application(s) if any also stand(s) disposed of. .2025 Whether speaking/reasoned Whether Reportable Hon’ble Supreme Court and therefore, does not warrant the interference General Manager, KSRTC Vs. Susamma II SCC 176, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that misplaced sympathy, generosity and benevolence cannot be the guiding factor for determining the compensation. the discussion above, I find no case is made out with the impugned Award. The appeal is Pending application(s) if any also stand(s) disposed of. ( NIDHI GUPTA ) JUDGE Yes/No Yes/No case is made out appeal is RISHU KATARIA 2025.08.18 18:49 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. FAO-5424 5424-2024 (O&M) -5- RISHU KATARIA 2025.08.18 18:49 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment.