IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 280 Suman Lata Mala Ram & Others CORAM: Present:- NIDHI GUPTA, J. enhancement of compensation of Rs. Accident Claims Tribunal, vide Award dated filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act (hereinafter “the Act”). The sole claimant is the mother of deceased Sachin 2. are that on 07.05.2019, there was marriage of Vishal (brother of deceased Sachin) at Beri 07/08.05.2019, Sachin along with Satish, Subham, Devender and Yogesh were coming back to village Mehrana in Swift Car No.DL (hereinafter referred to as “the accidental vehicle”) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Vs. & Others HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA Mr. Vikas Singh Chawra, Advocate for the appellant. *** NIDHI GUPTA, J. Present appeal has been filed by the enhancement of compensation of Rs.25,34,524 Accident Claims Tribunal, Jhajjar (hereinafter referred to as “the Tribunal”), vide Award dated 29.10.2024 passed in MACP filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act (hereinafter “the Act”). claimant is the mother of deceased Sachin Brief facts of the case as pleaded in the claim petition on 07.05.2019, there was marriage of Vishal (brother of deceased Sachin) at Beri. After attending marriage ceremony in the n 07/08.05.2019, Sachin along with Satish, Subham, Devender and Yogesh were coming back to village Mehrana in Swift Car No.DL (hereinafter referred to as “the accidental vehicle”) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO-456-2025(O&M) Date of decision: 01.05.2025 ...Appellant(s) ...Respondent(s) HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA , Advocate Present appeal has been filed by the claimant seeking 25,34,524/- awarded by the Motor (hereinafter referred to as “the Tribunal”), MACP-270-2019 dated 07.09.2019 filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act (hereinafter “the Act”). claimant is the mother of deceased Sachin son of Om Parkash. Brief facts of the case as pleaded in the claim petition on 07.05.2019, there was marriage of Vishal (brother of deceased attending marriage ceremony in the night of 07/08.05.2019, Sachin along with Satish, Subham, Devender and Yogesh were coming back to village Mehrana in Swift Car No.DL-1CN-9054 (hereinafter referred to as “the accidental vehicle”) being driven by Yogesh. 6 seeking awarded by the Motor (hereinafter referred to as “the Tribunal”), 07.09.2019 filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act (hereinafter “the Act”). Brief facts of the case as pleaded in the claim petition on 07.05.2019, there was marriage of Vishal (brother of deceased ight of 07/08.05.2019, Sachin along with Satish, Subham, Devender and Yogesh 9054 being driven by Yogesh. SUNENA 2025.05.05 11:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document When they crossed the Nirachiya Dham on Beri-Dujana Road, (hereinafter referred to as “the offending vehicle”) by its driver in negligent manner without taking any precautions and without any see the offending vehicle and therefore, the the offending vehicle from back side. Due to that impact, all the occupants of accidental vehicle died on the sp dated 08.05.2019 under Sections 279, 304 the Police Station Beri was registered. 3. documentary evidence adduced before it concl Sachin had died due to the injuries suffered by accident that took place on driving of the offending vehicle was owned by respondent No.2 and insured by respondent No.3. The above-said compensation was granted along with interest @ annum. 4. compensation be enhanced, Details Income Deduction When they crossed the Nirachiya Dham and reached towards village Dujana Dujana Road, atruck bearing registration No.RJ (hereinafter referred to as “the offending vehicle”) by its driver in negligent manner without taking any precautions and reflector or indicator. The driver of accidental vehicle could not the offending vehicle and therefore, the the offending vehicle from back side. Due to that impact, all the occupants of accidental vehicle died on the spot. A criminal case bearing FIR No.160 dated 08.05.2019 under Sections 279, 304-A IPC against respondent No.1 in the Police Station Beri was registered. The ld. Tribunal on the basis of pleadings and oral & documentary evidence adduced before it concl had died due to the injuries suffered by accident that took place on 7/8.05.2019 due to the rash and negligent the offending vehicle by respondent No.1. The offending vehicle was owned by respondent No.2 and insured by respondent No.3. The said compensation was granted along with interest @ It is submitted by ld. counsel for the appellant compensation be enhanced, in the following Before the Tribunal Monthly – Rs.17,258/ Annual – Rs.2,07,096/ ½ and reached towards village Dujana truck bearing registration No.RJ-07GB-7848 (hereinafter referred to as “the offending vehicle”) was parked on the road by its driver in negligent manner without taking any precautions and reflector or indicator. The driver of accidental vehicle could not the offending vehicle and therefore, the accidental vehicle struck into the offending vehicle from back side. Due to that impact, all the occupants ot. A criminal case bearing FIR No.160 A IPC against respondent No.1 in he ld. Tribunal on the basis of pleadings and oral & documentary evidence adduced before it concluded that the deceased had died due to the injuries suffered by him in a motor vehicular due to the rash and negligent by respondent No.1. The offending vehicle was owned by respondent No.2 and insured by respondent No.3. The said compensation was granted along with interest @ 9% per counsel for the appellant that the following terms: - Before the Tribunal Compensation claimed Rs.17,258/- Rs.2,07,096/- Monthly – Rs.17,258/- Annual – Rs.2,07,096/- ½ 6 and reached towards village Dujana 7848 was parked on the road by its driver in negligent manner without taking any precautions and reflector or indicator. The driver of accidental vehicle could not vehicle struck into the offending vehicle from back side. Due to that impact, all the occupants ot. A criminal case bearing FIR No.160 A IPC against respondent No.1 in he ld. Tribunal on the basis of pleadings and oral & deceased in a motor vehicular due to the rash and negligent by respondent No.1. The offending vehicle was owned by respondent No.2 and insured by respondent No.3. The % per that the SUNENA 2025.05.05 11:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Future prospects Multiplier Loss of estate Funeral expenses Loss of consortium Total compensation Interest 5. 6. perused the case file in great detail. 7. on behalf of the appellants. 8. has awarded compensation in fair and just manner. noted above, it has been admitted by the claimant in the claim petition that the accident in question took place as the accidental ve the deceased was travelling had struck into the offending vehicle from the back. Compensation has been awarded by the learned Tribunal, only keeping into account the facts that: as per offending vehicle was recover occurrence of accident; It is evident from rough site plan (Ex.P10) taken with report (Ex.P46) under Section 173 Cr.P.C., was parked without sign, offences under Sections 279 and 304 Future prospects 40% 17 Loss of estate Rs.15,000/- Funeral expenses Rs.15,000/- Loss of consortium Parental – Rs.44,000/ Total compensation Rs.25,34,524/- 9% No other argument is made on behalf of the I have heard learned counsel for the d the case file in great detail. I find no merit whatsoever in the arguments advanced on behalf of the appellants. Perusal of the Award shows that the learned Tribunal has awarded compensation in fair and just manner. noted above, it has been admitted by the claimant in the claim petition that the accident in question took place as the accidental ve the deceased was travelling had struck into the offending vehicle from the Compensation has been awarded by the learned Tribunal, only keeping into account the facts that: as per offending vehicle was recovered on 08.05.2019 from the spot of occurrence of accident; It is evident from rough site plan (Ex.P10) taken with report (Ex.P46) under Section 173 Cr.P.C., was parked without sign, or signal; Respondent No.1 is facing trial for offences under Sections 279 and 304-A IPC on submission of report 40% 17 Rs.18,150/- Rs.18,150/- Rs.44,000/- Rs.48,400/- Rs.25,49,224/- 18% No other argument is made on behalf of the appellant. learned counsel for the appellant and I find no merit whatsoever in the arguments advanced Perusal of the Award shows that the learned Tribunal has awarded compensation in fair and just manner. As has already been noted above, it has been admitted by the claimant in the claim petition that the accident in question took place as the accidental vehicle in which the deceased was travelling had struck into the offending vehicle from the Compensation has been awarded by the learned Tribunal, only keeping into account the facts that: as per Recovery Memo (Ex.P11) the ed on 08.05.2019 from the spot of occurrence of accident; It is evident from rough site plan (Ex.P10) taken with report (Ex.P46) under Section 173 Cr.P.C., that the offending vehicle Respondent No.1 is facing trial for A IPC on submission of report 6 and I find no merit whatsoever in the arguments advanced SUNENA 2025.05.05 11:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document (Ex.P8) under Section 173 Cr.P.C. offending vehicle has not appeared in witness box. 9. Examination Certificate of deceased (Ex.P4), in which his date of birth is mentioned as 30.10.1992. Thus, age of the deceased at the time of accident was 27 years 5 days. Respondents have not produced any evidence rebutting the age o proved to be Rs.17,258/ 10. conventional heads. However, No.13931 of 2017 & Others” Law Finder Doc ID # 977386 difference in compensation is about 4 to 5 per cent only, it does not warrant interference by this Court as, such variation in compensation is within permissible limits. 11. Court has been followed by the Kerala High Court in “ Director, Divisional Controller Versus Alikutty and Others” Law Finder Doc Id # 1885188 below:- “18. It is to be borne in mind, the accident occurred on 23,2,2019. It is more than 2 ½ years since the respondents 1 to 4 have been knocking at the doors of the Courts seeking compensation on (Ex.P8) under Section 173 Cr.P.C.; and because offending vehicle has not appeared in witness box. Further, claimants had pr Examination Certificate of deceased (Ex.P4), in which his date of birth is mentioned as 30.10.1992. Thus, age of the deceased at the time of accident was 27 years 5 days. Respondents have not produced any evidence rebutting the age of deceased. Income of deceased was also proved to be Rs.17,258/- per month at the time of his death. The appellant has sought enhancement only under the conventional heads. However, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in No.13931 of 2017 titled as “New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Vinish Jain & Others” Law Finder Doc ID # 977386, difference in compensation is about 4 to 5 per cent only, it does not warrant interference by this Court as, such variation in compensation is ithin permissible limits. This above-said judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court has been followed by the Kerala High Court in “ Director, Divisional Controller Versus Alikutty and Others” Law Finder Doc Id # 1885188. Relevant para 18 of the said judgment is reproduced “18. It is to be borne in mind, the accident occurred on 23,2,2019. It is more than 2 ½ years since the respondents 1 to 4 have been knocking at the doors of the Courts seeking compensation on ; and because Respondent No.1 driver of offending vehicle has not appeared in witness box. claimants had produced Middle Standard Examination Certificate of deceased (Ex.P4), in which his date of birth is mentioned as 30.10.1992. Thus, age of the deceased at the time of accident was 27 years 5 days. Respondents have not produced any f deceased. Income of deceased was also per month at the time of his death. has sought enhancement only under the Hon’ble Supreme Court in (SC) SLP “New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Vinish Jain it has been held that where difference in compensation is about 4 to 5 per cent only, it does not warrant interference by this Court as, such variation in compensation is said judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court has been followed by the Kerala High Court in “The Managing Director, Divisional Controller Versus Alikutty and Others” Law Finder the said judgment is reproduced “18. It is to be borne in mind, the accident occurred on 23,2,2019. It is more than 2 ½ years since the respondents 1 to 4 have been knocking at the doors of the Courts seeking compensation on 6 SUNENA 2025.05.05 11:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document account of the death of Tribunal is permitted to do some guess work and also exercise its discretion to fix the reasonable and just compensation, for which there cannot be any straitjacket formula based on mathematical precision. In Others [(2018) 3 SCC 619], that if the fixation of compensation is within permissible limits, the courts should normally not interfere with such awards”. 12. Court in “Reliance General Insurance Company Limited Others”, Law Finder Doc ID under:- “16. The other area of dispute is that the Tribunal after awarding awarded Rs.75,000/ Rs.10,000/ 17. In New India Assurance Co., Ltd v. Vineesh.J[2018 (3) SCC 619], the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held Court can permit variation of plus or minus 4 to 5 percent.” 13. compensation has been awarded to the appellant. Nothing whatsoever has been shown to this Court that would m compensation granted to the appellant. out which merits interference with the impugned Award. I find the compensation awarded to the appellant to be just and fair in the facts and circumstances of legislation yet, as cautioned by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the same account of the death of the bread-winner. It is trite law that the Tribunal is permitted to do some guess work and also exercise its discretion to fix the reasonable and just compensation, for which there cannot be any straitjacket formula based on mathematical precision. In New India Assurance Company Vs. Others [(2018) 3 SCC 619], the Hon'ble that if the fixation of compensation is within permissible limits, the courts should normally not interfere with such awards”. Above said view has been reiterated by the Kerala High Reliance General Insurance Company Limited Others”, Law Finder Doc ID # 1921609, paras 16. The other area of dispute is that the Tribunal after awarding compensation under the conventional heads has awarded Rs.75,000/- towards loss of love and affection and Rs.10,000/- awarded towards pain and sufferings. 17. In New India Assurance Co., Ltd v. Vineesh.J[2018 (3) SCC 619], the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held Court can permit variation of plus or minus 4 to 5 percent.” From the above facts, it is clear that a very just and fair compensation has been awarded to the appellant. Nothing whatsoever has been shown to this Court that would m compensation granted to the appellant. Accordingly, I find no case is made out which merits interference with the impugned Award. I find the compensation awarded to the appellant to be just and fair in the facts and circumstances of the case. No doubt Chapter legislation yet, as cautioned by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the same winner. It is trite law that the Tribunal is permitted to do some guess work and also exercise its discretion to fix the reasonable and just compensation, for which there cannot be any straitjacket formula based on mathematical India Assurance Company Vs. Vinish Jain and Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that if the fixation of compensation is within permissible limits, the courts should normally not interfere with such awards”. has been reiterated by the Kerala High Reliance General Insurance Company Limited Vs. Adila and paras 16 and 17 of which read as 16. The other area of dispute is that the Tribunal after compensation under the conventional heads has towards loss of love and affection and awarded towards pain and sufferings. 17. In New India Assurance Co., Ltd v. Vineesh.J[2018 (3) SCC 619], the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the Appellate Court can permit variation of plus or minus 4 to 5 percent.” From the above facts, it is clear that a very just and fair compensation has been awarded to the appellant. Nothing whatsoever has been shown to this Court that would merit enhancement of the Accordingly, I find no case is made out which merits interference with the impugned Award. I find the compensation awarded to the appellant to be just and fair in the facts and the case. No doubt Chapter-12 of the Act is a beneficial legislation yet, as cautioned by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the same 6 SUNENA 2025.05.05 11:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document cannot be allowed to be treated as a windfall or a source of profit. Hon’ble Supreme Court in ‘ Law Finder Doc ID # 64043 Mahadev Shetty’, (2003) 7 SCC 197, compensation should be just and reasonable, it should neither be a bonanza nor a source of profit but at t 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 Hon’ble Supreme Court and therefore, does not warrant the interference of this Court. In the case of Thomas & Others” 1994 Volume has held that misplaced sympathy, generosity and benevolence cannot be the guiding factor for determining the compensation. 14. 15. 01.05.2025 Sunena Whether speaking/reasoned: Whether reportable: cannot be allowed to be treated as a windfall or a source of profit. Hon’ble Supreme Court in ‘State of Haryana & Another Vs. Jas Law Finder Doc ID # 64043 and ‘Divisional Controller K.S.R.T.C. Vs. Mahadev Shetty’, (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, in the present case, the learned Tribunal has awarded a very ‘just’ compensation, which is in accordance with the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and therefore, does not warrant the interference of this Court. In the case of “General Manager, Thomas & Others” 1994 Volume-II SCC 176, has held that misplaced sympathy, generosity and benevolence cannot be the guiding factor for determining the compensation. In view of the above, present appeal is Pending application(s) if any also stand(s) disposed of. Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether reportable: Yes/No cannot be allowed to be treated as a windfall or a source of profit. Hon’ble State of Haryana & Another Vs. Jasbir Kaur & Others’ ‘Divisional Controller K.S.R.T.C. Vs. has held that the amount of compensation should be just and reasonable, it should neither be a he 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’ , which is in accordance with the law laid down by the 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. In view of the above, present appeal is dismissed. Pending application(s) if any also stand(s) disposed of. (Nidhi Gupta) Judge 6 SUNENA 2025.05.05 11:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document