FAO-1295 IN THE HIG 119 Urmila Devi Jaspal Singh CORAM: H Present: - NIDHI GUP CM-3855-C 1. Limitation A accompanyin 2. supported by filing the pre FAO-1295 1. enhancemen learned Mot Tribunal) vi bearing MAC the Motor V 95-2025 (O&M) -1- HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HA a Devi and others Versus Singh and others M: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDH None. I GUPTA, J. CII-2025 Prayer in this application fil tion Act, 1963is for condonation of d panying appeal. For the reasons mentioned i rted by an affidavit, the same is allow the present appeal is condoned. 1295-2025 The appellant-claimants have fi cement of the compensation amount of d Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, N al) vide impugned Award dated 26 g MACP No. 265-2020 dated 11.09.20 otor Vehicles Act, 1988. The 06 clai D HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO-1295-2025 (O&M) Date of Decision:25.02.2026 .…Appellants ....Respondents NIDHI GUPTA on filed under Section 5 of the on of delay of 43 days in filing the ned in the application which is is allowed and delay of 43 days in ave filed the present appeal seeking ount of ₹17,32,500/- awarded by the nal, Narnaul (for short-‘the learned ted 26.09.2024, passed in petition .09.2020 filed under Section 166 of claimants are the: i) 50-year-old the the h is s in king the rned ition 6 of old RISHU KATARIA 2026.02.26 19:59 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. FAO-1295 widow; ii) 2 year-old ma father of dec accident. 2. basis of pl deceased-Na took place o bearing reg vehicle’) by Gurdeep Sin Tribunal aw annum from the responde severally. 3. issued in th appearance o round of hea Accordingly determined Supreme Co Finder Doc Pranay Set appeal is bei 95-2025 (O&M) -2- ; ii) 25-year-old son; iii) 28-year- ld married daughter; v) 77-year-old of deceased-Narender Singh, who wa Brief facts of the case are that of pleadings and evidence adduce Narender Singh, had died in a m lace on 28.07.2020due to rash and neg g registration No. PB-02-BR-9813 by respondent No.1-Jaspal Singh ep Singh; and insured by respondent N al awarded compensation as above al from the date of filing the claim peti spondents were held liable to pay t The present appeal is of the yea in the same. Since, the inception of rance on behalf of the appellants. To of hearing, none has put in appearanc dingly, in view of the fact that the am ined as per the structured formula me Court in Sarla Verma vs. Delhi T r Doc Id # 188882 and National Insu y Sethi and others, (2017) 16 SCC l is being disposed of, in accordance w -old married daughter; iv) 30- old mother; and vi) 79-year-old ho was 46-47 years old at time of re that the learned Tribunal on the dduced before it concluded that in a motor vehicular accident that nd negligent driving of Milk Tanker 9813 (hereinafter ‘the offending Singh; owned by respondent No. 2- dent No. 3-Insurance Company. Ld. ove along with interest @ 7.5% per m petition till actual realization. All pay the compensation jointly and the year 2025 and notice is yet to be tion of the appeal none has put in Today also, even in the second earance on behalf of the appellants. he amount of compensation is to be rmula laid down by the Hon’ble elhi Transport Corporation, Law l Insurance Company Limited vs. 6 SCC 680; therefore, the present with law. old e of the that that ding per and o be t in ond . o be ’ble aw vs. sent RISHU KATARIA 2026.02.26 19:59 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. FAO-1295 4. appellant-cla ground that not apprecia deceased has considered th under the c interest upon from 7.5% t appeal may claimants de 5. ground what 6. the appellan accident dec In-charge; an also used to month. How their above PW-3 Dine Secondary S of deceased deceased-Na However, th 95-2025 (O&M) -3- Perusal of the present Ground claimants have sought enhancem d that the learned Tribunal while pass preciated the evidence on record. It i ed has been assessed on the lower si ered the interest on the loss of consor the conventional heads deserves en t upon the awarded amount of comp 7.5% to 12% per annum. It is accord l may be accepted and the amount of nts deserves to be enhanced. I have gone through the case fil whatsoever is made out for enhancem Perusal of the record shows th pellant-claimants before the learned nt deceased-Narender Singh was wor ; and also an agriculturist. It was sed to do the work of an Electrician a . However, the appellant-claimants ha above-said contentions. No doubt, th Dinesh Kumar, Transport In-charg dary School, Rajiaka, Rewari, who ha eased Ex. P-1; his Appointment Lette Narender Singh Ex. P-3; and h ver, the said evidence was rejected rounds of Appeal shows that the ancement of compensation on the le passing the impugned Award has It is asserted that Income of the wer side. Learned Tribunal has not consortium. The amount so awarded ves enhancement; and the rate of compensation should be enhanced ccordingly, prayed that the present unt of compensation awarded to the ase file in minute detail and find no hancement of the compensation. ws that it was the pleaded case of learned Tribunal that prior to the as working as driver-cum-transport was further averred that deceased ician and was earning ₹35,000/- per ants have miserably failed to prove ubt, the appellants have examined charge Shri Ram Angel Senior ho had produced Salary Certificate etter Ex. P-2; driving licence of and his Salary Reward Ex. P-4. jected by the learned Tribunal on the the has the not rded e of ced sent the d no e of the port ased per rove ined nior cate . on RISHU KATARIA 2026.02.26 19:59 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. FAO-1295 account of t deceased wa Certificate w school recor that decease till July 202 register, or a been receivin till July 202 Narender Sin July2020; an pursuance t deceased had July 2020. 7. deceased wa certificate ca was shown t Moreover, accounts of ₹20,000/- pe Tribunal ha ₹10,000/-per 8. deceased as 95-2025 (O&M) -4- nt of the fact that although, as per the ed was working in the said school s icate was produced only for the mo l record before and after July 2020 has eceased had been working with the sa ly 2020. Even no school attendance r, or any other record was produced t eceiving ₹15,000/- per month by way ly 2020. Accordingly, ld. Tribunal der Singh had worked as Peon-cum- ; and the accident in question had nce to which deceased had expire ed had worked in the said school only Further, as per Salary Certifi ed was shown to be ₹15,000/- per mo cate cannot be relied upon for the af hown to be working in the school onl ver, there is no supportive evidence o nts of the deceased in order to show t per month from other sources. In al has rightly assessed monthly i per month. I find no error in the sam Further, the learned Tribunal h ed as 46 years at the time of acciden the Appointment Letter Ex.P-2, hool since 01.10.2019. But Salary he month of July 2020. No other 20 has been produced to prove/show the said school from October 2019 dance register; salary disbursement uced to prove that the deceased had y way of salary from October 2019, unal had concluded that deceased- -Driver of the school only since had taken place on 28.07.2020, in expired on 27.09.2020. Thus, the l only for a period of one month i.e. Certificate Ex. P-1, salary of the per month. However, the said salary the aforesaid reason that deceased ol only for a period of one month. ence on record such as statement of show that the deceased was earning In this circumstance, the learned thly income of the deceased at the same. unal had determined the age of the ccident on the basis of Postmortem 2, lary ther how 019 ent had 019, ince 0, in the i.e. the lary ased nth. t of ning rned the rtem RISHU KATARIA 2026.02.26 19:59 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. FAO-1295 Report Ex. P addition of 2 income of th in accordanc multiplier of 9. not depende the deductio per judgmen National In 2729764 it 1988 - Marr of dependen the claimant 10. awarded a spousal con (claimants N Tribunal has expenses and total amount 11. compensatio the Act is Supreme Co 95-2025 (O&M) -5- t Ex. P-19. Accordingly, the learned T n of 25% towards future prospects, th e of the deceased at ₹12,500/- (₹10,0 ordance with law. Learned Tribunal lier of 13. As there were 02 married daug pendent upon the deceased, the learn duction of 1/4th towards personal ex dgment passed by Hon’ble Suprem nal Insurance Company Ltd., (SC it is held that “Compensation un arried daughter of deceased not en dency unless proven financial depe imants no. 3 and 4 are the married dau Under the Conventional Head total amount of ₹2,40,000/– (₹ l consortium (claimant No. 1-w ants No. 2 to 4); and filial consortium al has further awarded an amount o ses and ₹15,000/- towards loss of esta mount of ₹17,32,500/- as compensatio From the above facts, it is cl nsation has been awarded to the appel ct is a beneficial legislation yet, a me Court, the same cannot be allowed rned Tribunal had correctly made an cts, thereby calculating the monthly ,000/- + ₹2,500/-). The same is bunal has further correctly applied daughters of the deceased who are learned Tribunal had rightly made nal expenses of the deceased. As upreme Court in Deep Shikha v. ., (SC) : Law Finder Doc Id # n under the Motor Vehicles Act, t entitled to compensation for loss dependency.”. In the present case, ed daughters of the deceased. Heads, the learned Tribunal had ₹40,000/- each) towards loss of widow); parental consortium m (claimants No. 5 and 6). The ount of ₹15,000/- towards funeral f estate. Thus, the Tribunal granted nsation to the appellant-claimants. t is clear that a very just and fair appellants. No doubt Chapter-12 of yet, as cautioned by the Hon’ble llowed to be treated as a windfall or e an thly e is lied are ade As v. d # ct, ss ase, had s of tium The eral nted fair 2 of ’ble ll or RISHU KATARIA 2026.02.26 19:59 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. FAO-1295 a source of Another V 64043 and (2003) 7 SC just and reas but at the sa determined i is ‘just’. In m has awarded law laid dow warrant the KSRTC Vs 176, the Ho generosity a the compens 12. Kumari v. M # 421379; 02.04.2013, Section 168 Tribunal wh the amount legal standa does not m 95-2025 (O&M) -6- rce of profit. Hon’ble Supreme Cou er Vs. Jasbir Kaur & Others, Divisional Controller K.S.R.T ) 7 SCC 197, has held that the amoun d reasonable, it should neither be a b the same time it should not be a pitt ined in the facts of a given case is, th t’. In my considered view, in the pres arded a very ‘just’ compensation, wh id down by the Hon’ble Supreme C t the interference of this Court. In th C Vs. Susamma Thomas & Oth e Hon’ble Supreme Court has hel sity and benevolence cannot be the g mpensation. Further, the Hon’ble Supreme ri v. Madan Mohan (SC) 2013(5) Sc 379; Civil Appeal No.4646 and 2013, has held that: “Motor Vehicl 168 provides that amount of compen l which appears to it to be just - The unt so determined is fair, reasonab ndards and not a forensic lottery - ot mean ‘perfect’ or ‘absolute e Court in State of Haryana & thers, Law Finder Doc ID # .S.R.T.C. Vs. Mahadev Shetty’, amount of compensation should be be a bonanza nor a source of profit a pittance. Thus, all that has to be e is, that the compensation accorded e present case, the learned Tribunal on, which is in accordance with the eme Court and therefore, does not . In the case of General Manager, Others, 1994 Volume-II SCC as held that misplaced sympathy, e the guiding factor for determining reme Court in the case of Reshma (5) Scale 160; Law Finder Doc ID and 4647 of 2009 decided on hicles Act, 1988, Section 168 - pensation awarded by the Claims The expression, ‘just’ means that onable and equitable by accepted - Obviously ‘just compensation’ lute’ compensation - The just & # tty’, d be rofit o be rded unal the not ger, CC thy, ning ma c ID on ms at d ust RISHU KATARIA 2026.02.26 19:59 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. FAO-1295 compensatio obtaining un 13. that merits dismissed. 14. 25.02.2026 rishu 95-2025 (O&M) -7- sation principle requires examinatio g uniquely in an individual case.” In view of the discussion abov erits interference with the impug . Pending application(s) if any als 2026 Whether speaking/reasoned Whether Reportable nation of the particular situation above, I find no case is made out impugned Award. The appeal is any also stand(s) disposed of. ( NIDHI GUPTA ) JUDGE Yes/No Yes/No on out l is RISHU KATARIA 2026.02.26 19:59 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment.