FAO-1823 IN THE HIG 117 Sanjay and o Mohit and ot CORAM: H Present: - NIDHI GUP CM-5711-C 1. Limitation A accompanyin 2. 3. supported by filing the pre FAO-1823 1. enhancemen Motor Acci Tribunal) vi bearing MA and 140 of th 23-2025 (O&M) -1- HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HA and others Versus and others M: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDH Mr. JP Sharma, Advocate for th I GUPTA, J. CII-2025 Prayer in this application fil tion Act, 1963is for condonation of panying appeal. Heard. For the reasons mentioned i rted by an affidavit, the same is allow the present appeal is condoned. 1823-2025 The appellant-claimants have fi cement of the compensation amount of Accident Claims Tribunal, Narn al) vide impugned Award dated 21 g MACP No. 24-2023 dated 25.01.2 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Th D HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO-1823-2025(O&M) Date of Decision: 27.02.2026 .…Appellants ....Respondents NIDHI GUPTA for the appellants. on filed under Section 5 of the on of delay of 21days in filing the ned in the application which is is allowed and delay of 21 days in ave filed the present appeal seeking ount of ₹11,26,000/- awarded by the Narnaul (for short-‘the learned 21.11.2024, passed in petition 5.01.2023 filed under Sections 166 988. The 04 claimants are the: i) 33- the the h is s in king the rned ition RISHU KATARIA 2026.02.27 20:01 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. FAO-1823 year-old son claimant No time of accid 3; whereas c impleaded 2. basis of pl deceased-Sa place on 11 registration respondent N insured by r compensatio of filing the held liable to 3. compensatio income of th even the Mi Learned cou on the lower Tribunal; de properly; an submitted th affection; an 23-2025 (O&M) -2- son; ii) 34-year-old daughter-in-law nt No. 2/grandsons of deceased-Sarti D f accident. The present appeal has bee ereas claimant No. 4-Parveen minor so ded as proforma respondent No. 4. Brief facts of the case are that of pleadings and evidence adduce Sarti Devi, had died in a motor 11.08.2022due to rash and neglig ation No. HR-63-C-7384(hereinafter dent No.1-Mohit; owned by respond d by respondent No. 3-Insurance Com nsation as above along with interest @ g the claim petition till actual realizat able to pay the compensation jointly a Learned counsel for the appe nsation by submitting that the lear e of the deceased on the lower side a the Minimum Wages in the year 202 ed counsel submits that the multiplier a lower side; no future prospects have al; deduction towards personal expe and lesser compensation has b tted that nothing has been awarded un and no increase has also been giv law; and iii) 2 minor children of Sarti Devi, who was 52 years old at as been filed by claimants No. 1 to inor son of claimant No. 2 has been re that the learned Tribunal on the dduced before it concluded that motor vehicular accident that took negligent driving of Truck bearing inafter ‘the offending vehicle’) by spondent No. 2-Satish Kumar; and ce Company. Ld. Tribunal awarded rest @ 9% per annum from the date ealization. All the respondents were intly and severally. appellants seeks enhancement of e learned Tribunal has taken the side as only ₹8000/- per month as, ar 2022 was ₹18,000/- per month. iplier applied by the Tribunal is also have been awarded by the learned l expenses etc. has not been taken as been awarded. It is further ded under the Head loss of love and en given. Accordingly, it is prayed of at 1 to een the that took ring by and rded date ere t of the as, . also rned ken ther and yed RISHU KATARIA 2026.02.27 20:01 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. FAO-1823 that the pre modified and awarded to t 4. have heard l merit in the s 5. the appellant impugned A 23-2025 (O&M) -3- e present appeal may be allowed; a ied and compensation of ₹50,00,000/ ed to the appellants. No other argument is raised o eard learned counsel and perused the in the submissions advanced by learned Perusal of the record shows th pellants before the learned Tribunal as ned Award which reads as follows:- 2. Case of the petitioners i Sandeep Kumar (deceased) alo while riding on one motorcy Kumar alongwith Pankaj Kuma another motorcycle bearing r were returning to their house about 5.00 pm, they reached in Nangal Chaudhary Road an motorcycles for call natures, No.HR-63C-7384 (here-in-aft vehicle) being driven by respon a rash and negligent manner c Sarti and Pankaj Kumar due to and grievous injuries on their p and Pankaj Kumar were shift Narnaul, where Sarti died and Hospital, Kotputli whereas Pa NIMS Hospital, Jaipur. Po Sandeep Kumar and Pankaj Government Hospital, Narnaul arrested the driver of offen submitted that the accident took wed; and the impugned Award be ,000/- along with interest @ 18% be ised on behalf of the appellants. I the case file in detail. I find no learned counsel for appellants. ws that it was the pleaded case of nal as recorded in para No. 2 of the ers in brief is that on 11.8.2022, ) alongwith his mother (deceased) orcycle and his brother Sanjay umar (petitioner) while riding on g registration No.RJ-02BL-9424 ouse from village Thathwari. At d in front of Suman Petrol Pump, and when they parked their res, a truck bearing registration after referred as offending spondent No.1, at a high speed, in er came and hit Sandeep Kumar, e to which they sustained multiple eir person. Sandeep Kumar, Sarti shifted to Government Hospital, and Sandeep Kumar died in BDM s Pankaj Kumar was shifted to Postmortem examinations of nkaj Kumar were conducted at naul. During investigation police offending vehicle. It is further took place solely due to rash and be be I no e of f the 2, d) ay on 24 At p, eir on ng in ar, le rti al, M to of at ice er nd RISHU KATARIA 2026.02.27 20:01 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. FAO-1823 6. of claimant No. 2 and 3 claimant No claimants No namely, Pan 7. bearing MA Sandeep Ku present MAC seeking com awarded com claimant No ₹1,24,000/- 8. of compensa taken on the was 52 yea appellant No to her famil ₹8000/- per m 23-2025 (O&M) -4- negligent act of respondent respondent No.2 being regist No.3 being Insurer of the offe severally liable to pay compens In the accident dated 11.08.202 imant No. 1, husband of claimant N and 3 had expired. In the said acc nt No. 1, mother-in-law of claimant nts No. 3 and 4 has also expired. Furt y, Pankaj Kumar is also suffered injuri Accordingly, claimants No. 2 t g MACP-23-2023, seeking compensa ep Kumar and have been awarded co t MACP-24-2023, has been filed by th g compensation on account death o ed compensation of ₹11,26,000/-; and nt No. 3-Pankaj Kumar and has bee -; vide common Award dated 21.1 In the present case, the appella pensation on the ground that incom the lower side as ₹8000/- per mon years old at the time of acciden ant No. 2. In these facts, the contribut family has been correctly assessed per month. dent No.1, who being driver, egistered owner and respondent offending vehicle are jointly and pensation to the petitioners.” .08.2022, Sandeep Kumar - brother ant No. 2, and father of claimants id accident, Sarti Devi, mother of aimant No. 2, and grandmother of d. Further, appellant/claimant No. 3, injuries in the said accident. o. 2 to 4, had filed Claim Petition pensation on account of death of ded compensation of ₹23,25,000/-; d by the claimants/appellants herein eath of Sarti Devi and have been ; and MACP-25-2023 was filed by as been awarded compensation of d 21.11.2024. appellants are seeking enhancement income of the deceased has been er month. Admittedly, the deceased ccident and was mother-in-law of ntribution rendered by the deceased sessed by the learned Tribunal as , nt nd ther ants r of r of o. 3, h of ; rein een by n of ent een ased of ased l as RISHU KATARIA 2026.02.27 20:01 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. FAO-1823 9. deceased as Card and Accordingly of 11. 10. that no addi prospects is such, future Hon’ble Su Corporation learned Trib 11. loss of cons towards los transportati compensatio 12. compensatio the Act is Supreme Co a source of Another V 64043 and (2003) 7 SC 23-2025 (O&M) -5- Further, the learned Tribunal h ed as 52 years at the time of acciden and Voter Identity Card, Ex. P dingly, the learned Tribunal had cor The argument raised by learne ddition has been made by the lea cts is without merit as, deceased was future prospects are not liable to be a le Supreme Court in Sarla Ver ration, Law Finder Doc Id # 188882 d Tribunal has made no deduction tow Furthermore, the Tribunal has f consortium to be paid to appellan s loss of estate and ₹15,000/- tow ion; thereby granting total a nsation to the appellants. 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 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 unal had determined the age of the ccident on the basis of her Aadhar . P-42 and P-43, respectively. ad correctly applied the multiplier learned counsel for the appellants he learned Tribunal towards future was more than 52 years old. As to be added as per judgment of the Verma vs. Delhi Transport 188882. It is also to be seen that the n towards personal expenses. al has awarded ₹40,000/- towards ppellant/claimant No. 1; ₹15,000/- towards funeral expenses and tal amount of ₹11,26,000/- as 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 Court in State of Haryana & thers, Law Finder Doc ID # .S.R.T.C. Vs. Mahadev Shetty’, amount of compensation should be the dhar plier ants ture . As the port t the ards as fair 2 of ’ble ll or & # tty’, d be RISHU KATARIA 2026.02.27 20:01 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. FAO-1823 just and reas but at the sa Manager, K SCC 176, th generosity a the compens 13. Kumari v. M # 421379; 02.04.2013, Section 168 Tribunal wh the amount legal standa does not m compensatio obtaining un 14. that merits dismissed. 15. 27.02.2026 rishu 23-2025 (O&M) -6- reasonable, it should neither be a b the same time it should not be a pitt ger, KSRTC Vs. Susamma Thomas the Hon’ble Supreme Court has h 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 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 be a bonanza nor a source of profit a pittance. In the case of General homas & Others, 1994 Volume-II t has 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 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 rofit eral II thy, ning ma c ID on ms at ed ust on out l is RISHU KATARIA 2026.02.27 20:01 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment.