IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 266 Santosh & Others Balraj Arya & Others CORAM: Present:- NIDHI GUPTA, J. enhancement of compensation of Rs.10,55,600/ Accident Claims Tribunal, Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to as “the learned Tribunal”) vide Award dated 07.02.2018 passed in MACT No.133/01.03.2017 the appellants/claimants. year-old son; 29 Kumar. 2. the basis of pleadings and oral & documentary evidence adduced before it concluded that by him in a motor vehicular accident that took place on 9:45 pm due to the rash and negligent driving of No.HR-07U-5154 (hereinafter referr respondent No.1. The offending vehicle was insured by respondent No.2. 3. appellants has sought IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Santosh & Others Vs. & Others HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA Ms. Tanika Goyal, Advocate for the appellants. *** NIDHI GUPTA, J. Present appeal has been filed by the enhancement of compensation of Rs.10,55,600/ Accident Claims Tribunal, Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to as “the learned Tribunal”) vide Award dated 07.02.2018 passed in MACT No.133/01.03.2017 filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act by the appellants/claimants. The 4 claimants are the 51 old son; 29-year-old son; and 32-year-old daughter of deceased Arjun Brief facts of the case are that the learned Tribunal on the basis of pleadings and oral & documentary evidence adduced before it ncluded that deceased Arjun Kumar had died due to the injuries suffered in a motor vehicular accident that took place on due to the rash and negligent driving of 5154 (hereinafter referred to as “the offending vehicle”) respondent No.1. The offending vehicle was insured by respondent No.2. The only ground on which learned counsel for the has sought enhancement of compensation is that consortium p. 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO-3950-2019(O&M) Date of decision: 27.03.2025 ...Appellant(s) ...Respondent(s) HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA , Advocate Present appeal has been filed by the claimants seeking enhancement of compensation of Rs.10,55,600/- awarded by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to as “the learned Tribunal”) vide Award dated 07.02.2018 passed in MACT filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act by imants are the 51-year-old widow; 31- old daughter of deceased Arjun Brief facts of the case are that the learned Tribunal on the basis of pleadings and oral & documentary evidence adduced before it had died due to the injuries suffered in a motor vehicular accident that took place on 11.02.2017 at about due to the rash and negligent driving of car bearing registration ed to as “the offending vehicle”) by respondent No.1. The offending vehicle was insured by respondent No.2. The only ground on which learned counsel for the enhancement of compensation is that consortium 4 claimants seeking awarded by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to as “the learned Tribunal”) vide Award dated 07.02.2018 passed in MACT filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act by - old daughter of deceased Arjun Brief facts of the case are that the learned Tribunal on the basis of pleadings and oral & documentary evidence adduced before it had died due to the injuries suffered 11.02.2017 at about car bearing registration by The only ground on which learned counsel for the enhancement of compensation is that consortium SUNENA 2025.04.02 18:18 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document has been awarded only to been awarded to the children of the deceased. 4. 5. perused the case file in great detail. 6. behalf of the appellants as admittedly, the claimants No.2 to 4 the age of majority much prior to filing of the claim petition. filing of claim petition, the claimants No.2 to old, and 32 years old respectively. that a very just and fair compensation has been awarded to the It was the pleaded case of the appellants before the learned Tribunal that the deceased was a contract per month. However, no evidence was led by the appellants in this regard. As such, the learned Tribunal had taken income of the deceased as that of an unskilled labourer as Rs.8,000/ deceased came to be Rs. Mortem Report (Ex.P6), age of the deceased was taken to be 55 years. As such, multiplier of 11 was correctly applied future prospects was also correctly made. deceased was calculated to be Rs.1,05,600/ deduction of 1/3 total loss of dependency was calculated to be Rs 14). Learned Tribunal further awarded Rs.40,000/ consortium funeral expenses total compensation apportioned in a) 40% to claimant No.1/widow has been awarded only to claimant No.1/widow been awarded to the children of the deceased. No other argument is made on behalf of the appellant I have heard learned counsel for the appellant perused the case file in great detail. I find no merit in the aforesaid submission made on behalf of the appellants as admittedly, the claimants No.2 to 4 majority much prior to filing of the claim petition. filing of claim petition, the claimants No.2 to and 32 years old respectively. Moreover, the facts of the case reveal that a very just and fair compensation has been awarded to the It was the pleaded case of the appellants before the learned Tribunal that the deceased was a contractor by profession and was earning Rs.25,000/ per month. However, no evidence was led by the appellants in this regard. As such, the learned Tribunal had taken income of the deceased as that of an unskilled labourer as Rs.8,000/- per month deceased came to be Rs.96,000/- (Rs.8,000/ Mortem Report (Ex.P6), age of the deceased was taken to be 55 years. As such, multiplier of 11 was correctly applied ture prospects was also correctly made. deceased was calculated to be Rs.1,05,600/ deduction of 1/3rd towards personal expenses total loss of dependency was calculated to be Rs . Learned Tribunal further awarded Rs.40,000/ claimant No.1/widow of the deceased funeral expenses; and Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate. total compensation of Rs.10,55,600/-. The compensation was further apportioned in the following manner: - a) 40% to claimant No.1/widow p. 2 claimant No.1/widow, and no consortium has been awarded to the children of the deceased. made on behalf of the appellants. arned counsel for the appellants and I find no merit in the aforesaid submission made on behalf of the appellants as admittedly, the claimants No.2 to 4 have reached majority much prior to filing of the claim petition. At the time of filing of claim petition, the claimants No.2 to 4 were 31 years old, 29 years Moreover, the facts of the case reveal that a very just and fair compensation has been awarded to the appellants. It was the pleaded case of the appellants before the learned Tribunal that by profession and was earning Rs.25,000/- per month. However, no evidence was led by the appellants in this regard. As such, the learned Tribunal had taken income of the deceased as that of per month; and annual income of the (Rs.8,000/- x 12). On the basis of Post- Mortem Report (Ex.P6), age of the deceased was taken to be 55 years. As such, multiplier of 11 was correctly applied; and addition of 10% towards ture prospects was also correctly made. Thus, annual income of the deceased was calculated to be Rs.1,05,600/-.Learned Tribunal made a towards personal expenses (Rs.70,400/-). Accordingly, total loss of dependency was calculated to be Rs.9,85,600/- (Rs.70,400/- x . Learned Tribunal further awarded Rs.40,000/- towards loss of claimant No.1/widow of the deceased; Rs.15,000/- towards towards loss of estate. Thus, granting a . The compensation was further 4 and no consortium has and I find no merit in the aforesaid submission made on reached At the time of 4 were 31 years old, 29 years Moreover, the facts of the case reveal appellants. It was the pleaded case of the appellants before the learned Tribunal that - per month. However, no evidence was led by the appellants in this regard. As such, the learned Tribunal had taken income of the deceased as that of annual income of the - Mortem Report (Ex.P6), age of the deceased was taken to be 55 years. As addition of 10% towards Thus, annual income of the made a . Accordingly, x towards loss of towards Thus, granting a . The compensation was further SUNENA 2025.04.02 18:18 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document b) 20% to 31- c) 20% to 29- d) 20% to 32- 7. claimants No.2 to 4 upon the deceased was nowhere proven on record. Even it is nowhere stated as to whether claimant No.4 is unmarried daughter of the 8. compensation has been awarded to the appellant has been shown to this Court that would merit enhancement of the compensation granted to the appellant is a beneficial legislati the same cannot be allowed to be treated as a windfall or a source of profit. Hon’ble Supreme Court in ‘ Kaur &Others’ Law Finder Doc ID # 64043 K.S.R.T.C. Vs. Mahadev Shetty’, (2003) 7 SCC 197, 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 d 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 Supre of this Court. In the case of Thomas & Others” 1994 Volume has held that misplaced sympathy, generosity and benevolence cann the guiding factor for determining the compensation. 9. or controvert the aforesaid facts and finding. -year-old son/claimant No.2 -year-old son/claimant No.3 -year-old daughter/claimant No.4 It has to be noted that the financial dependency of the claimants No.2 to 4 upon the deceased was nowhere proven on record. Even it is nowhere stated as to whether claimant No.4 is unmarried the deceased. From the above facts, it is clear compensation has been awarded to the appellant has been shown to this Court that would merit enhancement of the compensation granted to the appellants. No doubt Chapter 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’ Law Finder Doc ID # 64043 K.S.R.T.C. Vs. Mahadev Shetty’, (2003) 7 SCC 197, 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 cann the guiding factor for determining the compensation. Learned counsel for the appellant or controvert the aforesaid facts and finding. p. 3 old daughter/claimant No.4 It has to be noted that the financial dependency of the claimants No.2 to 4 upon the deceased was nowhere proven on record. Even it is nowhere stated as to whether claimant No.4 is unmarried From the above facts, it is clear that a very just and fair compensation has been awarded to the appellants. Nothing whatsoever has been shown to this Court that would merit enhancement of the No doubt Chapter-12 of the Act on yet, as cautioned by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the same cannot be allowed to be treated as a windfall or a source of State of Haryana & Another Vs. Jasbir Kaur &Others’ 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 etermined 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 me 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. Learned counsel for the appellants is unable to dispute or controvert the aforesaid facts and finding. 4 It has to be noted that the financial dependency of the claimants No.2 to 4 upon the deceased was nowhere proven on record. Even it is nowhere stated as to whether claimant No.4 is unmarried is unable to dispute SUNENA 2025.04.02 18:18 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 10. the impugned 11. 27.03.2025 Sunena Whether speaking/reasoned: Whether reportable: In view of the facts noticed above, I the impugned Award. The present appeal is accordingly, Pending application(s) if any also stand(s) disposed of. Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether reportable: Yes/No p. 4 view of the facts noticed above, I find no infirmity in accordingly, dismissed. Pending application(s) if any also stand(s) disposed of. (Nidhi Gupta) Judge 4 find no infirmity in SUNENA 2025.04.02 18:18 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document