IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 269 Shinder Pal Kaur & Another Roop Singh & Shinder Pal Kaur & Roop Singh & Others CORAM: Present:- NIDHI GUPTA, J. CM-8763-CII- with Section 151 CPC appeal. which is supported by affidavi to all just exceptions and delay of condoned. CM-10172-CII Section 151 CPC IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Shinder Pal Kaur & Another Vs. Singh & Others *** Shinder Pal Kaur & Others Vs. Roop Singh & Others HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA Mr. Deepak Gupta, Advocate for the appellants. *** NIDHI GUPTA, J. -2021 IN FAO-1046-2021 This is an application u/s with Section 151 CPC for condonation of delay of After going through the contents of the application, which is supported by affidavit of the applicant, the same is allowed subject to all just exceptions and delay of 397 days in filing the present appeal is CII-2021 IN FAO-1560-2021 This is an application u/s Section 151 CPC for condonation of delay of IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 18.03.2025 FAO-1046-2021(O&M) ...Appellant(s) ...Respondent(s) FAO-1560-2021(O&M) ...Appellant(s) ...Respondent(s) HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA , Advocate u/s 5 of the Limitation Act read for condonation of delay of 397 days in filing the After going through the contents of the application, t of the applicant, the same is allowed subject days in filing the present appeal is /s 5 of Limitation Act read with ion of delay of 397 days in filing the appeal. 7 read days in filing the After going through the contents of the application, t of the applicant, the same is allowed subject days in filing the present appeal is read with SUNENA 2025.03.24 18:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document which is supported by affidavit of the applicant, the same is allowed subject to all just exceptions and delay of condoned. MAIN CASE enhancement of compensation of Rs.10,19,000/ Accident Claims Tribunal, Bathinda vide Award dated 06.04.2019 passed in MAC File No.54 dated 29.04.2016 Roop Singh & Others”, the Motor Vehicles Act Singh. The 2 claimants are the 56 unmarried daughter of compensation was granted along with interest date of filing of claim petition till its realisation. seeking enhancement of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bathinda vide Award dated 06.04.2019 passed in MAC File No.53 dated 29.04.2016 titled as “Shinder Pal Kaur & Another Vs. Roop Singh & Others”, filed Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act seeking compensation damages caused to their Toyota Innova vehicle. allowed this claim petition with costs and After going through the contents of the application, which is supported by affidavit of the applicant, the same is allowed subject to all just exceptions and delay of 397 days in filing the present appeal i FAO-1046-2021 has been filed by the claimants seeking enhancement of compensation of Rs.10,19,000/ Accident Claims Tribunal, Bathinda vide Award dated 06.04.2019 passed in MAC File No.54 dated 29.04.2016 titled as “Shinder Pal Kaur & Another Vs. Roop Singh & Others”, filed by the appellant/claimants under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act seeking compensation on account of death of The 2 claimants are the 56-year unmarried daughter of the deceased Natha Singh. compensation was granted along with interest date of filing of claim petition till its realisation. FAO-1560-2021 has also been filed by the claimants seeking enhancement of compensation of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bathinda vide Award dated 06.04.2019 passed in MAC File No.53 dated 29.04.2016 titled as “Shinder Pal Kaur & . Roop Singh & Others”, filed by the appellant/claimants under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act seeking compensation damages caused to their Toyota Innova vehicle. allowed this claim petition with costs and After going through the contents of the application, which is supported by affidavit of the applicant, the same is allowed subject days in filing the present appeal is has been filed by the claimants seeking enhancement of compensation of Rs.10,19,000/- awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bathinda vide Award dated 06.04.2019 passed in titled as “Shinder Pal Kaur & Another Vs. by the appellant/claimants under Section 166 of seeking compensation on account of death of Natha year-old widow and 29-year-old deceased Natha Singh. The above said compensation was granted along with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of claim petition till its realisation. has also been filed by the claimants compensation of Rs.2,45,420/- awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bathinda vide Award dated 06.04.2019 passed in MAC File No.53 dated 29.04.2016 titled as “Shinder Pal Kaur & by the appellant/claimants under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act seeking compensation on account of damages caused to their Toyota Innova vehicle. The learned Tribunal partly allowed this claim petition with costs and awarded the above said 7 After going through the contents of the application, which is supported by affidavit of the applicant, the same is allowed subject s has been filed by the claimants seeking awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bathinda vide Award dated 06.04.2019 passed in titled as “Shinder Pal Kaur & Another Vs. by the appellant/claimants under Section 166 of Natha old The above said @ 7.5% per annum from the has also been filed by the claimants awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bathinda vide Award dated 06.04.2019 passed in MAC File No.53 dated 29.04.2016 titled as “Shinder Pal Kaur & by the appellant/claimants under on account of The learned Tribunal partly the above said SUNENA 2025.03.24 18:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document compensation of claim petition till its realisation common order as they arise out of the same Award dated 06.04.20 passed by the Motor Accidents, Claims Tribunal, Bathinda; and out of the same accident dated 27.1.2016; and because the parties, facts, and issues in the appeals are identical. referred to and the f 2. the basis of pleadings and oral & documentary evidence adduced before it concluded that the suffered by him at about 5-6 pm registration No. vehicle”) by respondent No.2 respondent No. 3. of compensation solely on the ground that the deceased was a retired employee, yet nothing has been granted by way of future prospects. It is further submitted that the deceased was drawing pension of Rs.18,000/ per month yet his income has been taken as only Rs.14,500/ is accordingly prayed that the compensation so compensation along with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of claim petition till its realisation. Both the above appeals are being disposed of by this common order as they arise out of the same Award dated 06.04.20 passed by the Motor Accidents, Claims Tribunal, Bathinda; and out of the same accident dated 27.1.2016; and because the parties, facts, and issues in the appeals are identical. For the sake of convenience, the parties are being referred to and the facts are being drawn from FAO Brief facts of the case are that the learned Tribunal on the basis of pleadings and oral & documentary evidence adduced before it concluded that the deceased Natha Singh by him in a motor vehicular accident that took place on 6 pm due to the rash and negligent driving of registration No.HR-44G-9240 (hereinafter referred to as “the offend by respondent No.2.The offending respondent No.1 and insured by respondent No. Learned counsel for the appellants seeks enhancement of compensation solely on the ground that the deceased was a retired yet nothing has been granted by way of future prospects. It is further submitted that the deceased was drawing pension of Rs.18,000/ per month yet his income has been taken as only Rs.14,500/ is accordingly prayed that the compensation so along with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing Both the above appeals are being disposed of by this common order as they arise out of the same Award dated 06.04.2019 passed by the Motor Accidents, Claims Tribunal, Bathinda; and out of the same accident dated 27.1.2016; and because the parties, facts, and issues For the sake of convenience, the parties are being acts are being drawn from FAO-1046-2021. Brief facts of the case are that the learned Tribunal on the basis of pleadings and oral & documentary evidence adduced before it Natha Singh had died due to the injuries in a motor vehicular accident that took place on 27.01.2016 due to the rash and negligent driving of Swift car bearing (hereinafter referred to as “the offending .The offending vehicle was owned by and insured by respondent No.3. Learned counsel for the appellants seeks enhancement of compensation solely on the ground that the deceased was a retired yet nothing has been granted by way of future prospects. It is further submitted that the deceased was drawing pension of Rs.18,000/- per month yet his income has been taken as only Rs.14,500/- per month. It is accordingly prayed that the compensation so granted be enhanced. 7 along with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing Both the above appeals are being disposed of by this 19 passed by the Motor Accidents, Claims Tribunal, Bathinda; and out of the same accident dated 27.1.2016; and because the parties, facts, and issues For the sake of convenience, the parties are being Brief facts of the case are that the learned Tribunal on the basis of pleadings and oral & documentary evidence adduced before it died due to the injuries 27.01.2016 bearing ing vehicle was owned by Learned counsel for the appellants seeks enhancement of compensation solely on the ground that the deceased was a retired yet nothing has been granted by way of future prospects. It is - per month. It SUNENA 2025.03.24 18:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 4. 5. perused the case file in great detail. 6. on behalf of the app time of accident, the deceased was 61 years old stands prove argument raised on behalf of the appellants is that nothing has been granted by way of future prospects. However, Constitution Bench judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Insurance Company Ltd. VS. Pranay Sethi & Others” Law Finder 918174, that has to be made by way of future prospects. by learned counsel for the appellants that pension of Rs.18,000/ ₹14,500/– per month Para 25 of the impugned Award deceased Natha Singh placed on record by the claimants as Ex.C2, the last entry of pension credited into his account is shown to be Rs.14,418/ Accordingly, the learned Tribunal had concluded that the deceased w drawing monthly pension of Rs.14,418/ Rs.14,500/-. No other argument is made on behalf of the I have heard learned counsel for the perused the case file in great detail. I find no merit whatsoever in the arguments advanced on behalf of the appellants. Perusal of record of the case shows that at the time of accident, the deceased was 61 years old proved from his Post-Mortem Examination Report (Ex.C1). The argument raised on behalf of the appellants is that nothing has been granted by way of future prospects. However, Constitution Bench judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in nce Company Ltd. VS. Pranay Sethi & Others” Law Finder that when the age of the deceased is 60 years or more, no addition has to be made by way of future prospects. by learned counsel for the appellants that pension of Rs.18,000/- per month, yet his income has been taken as only per month. However, this is factually incorrect as Para 25 of the impugned Award, as per the photocopies of the passbooks of deceased Natha Singh placed on record by the claimants as Ex.C2, the last entry of pension credited into his account is shown to be Rs.14,418/ Accordingly, the learned Tribunal had concluded that the deceased w drawing monthly pension of Rs.14,418/- . No other argument is made on behalf of the appellants. I have heard learned counsel for the appellants and merit whatsoever in the arguments advanced ellants. Perusal of record of the case shows that at the time of accident, the deceased was 61 years old. Age of the deceased Mortem Examination Report (Ex.C1). The argument raised on behalf of the appellants is that nothing has been granted by way of future prospects. However, it has been held by a Constitution Bench judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in “National nce Company Ltd. VS. Pranay Sethi & Others” Law Finder Doc ID # when the age of the deceased is 60 years or more, no addition has to be made by way of future prospects. Further, it has been submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that the deceased was drawing a his income has been taken as only is factually incorrect as, as noted in as per the photocopies of the passbooks of deceased Natha Singh placed on record by the claimants as Ex.C2, the last entry of pension credited into his account is shown to be Rs.14,418/-. Accordingly, the learned Tribunal had concluded that the deceased was - which was rounded off to 7 and merit whatsoever in the arguments advanced ellants. Perusal of record of the case shows that at the of the deceased Mortem Examination Report (Ex.C1). The argument raised on behalf of the appellants is that nothing has been a “National Doc ID # when the age of the deceased is 60 years or more, no addition Further, it has been submitted the deceased was drawing a his income has been taken as only noted in as per the photocopies of the passbooks of deceased Natha Singh placed on record by the claimants as Ex.C2, the last . as which was rounded off to SUNENA 2025.03.24 18:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 7. the appellants that the deceased was an agriculturist. From Jamabandi (Ex.C4), it was shown that the deceased wa land. Although no income was proved from the said land, the learned Tribunal held that the said land had devolved upon the claimants. As such, learned Tribunal had taken expenses of management of the said land to be Rs.2,000/- per month. to be Rs.16,500/ managerial purposes of the agricultural land number, Deduction of 1/3 Thus, monthly income calculated to be years old, multiplier of 7 was correctly applied. Thus, taking annua dependency to be Rs.9,24,000/ further granted Rs.15,000/ to widow and daughter granting total compensation of Rs.10,19 + Rs.80,000/- 8. been advanced by the learned counsel for the appellants sought higher Innova. However, claimants to show that they have suffered any loss of business due to non It may further be noticed that it the appellants that the deceased was an agriculturist. From Jamabandi (Ex.C4), it was shown that the deceased was owner of 2 acres of agricultural land. Although no income was proved from the said land, the learned Tribunal held that the said land had devolved upon the claimants. As such, learned Tribunal had taken expenses of management of the said land to be per month. Accordingly, income of the deceased was calculated to be Rs.16,500/- per month (Rs.14,500/ managerial purposes of the agricultural land Deduction of 1/3rd was correctly made towards personal expenses. Thus, monthly income came to be Rs.11,000/ calculated to be Rs.1,32,000/- (Rs.11,000/- years old, multiplier of 7 was correctly applied. Thus, taking annua dependency to be Rs.9,24,000/- (Rs.1,32,000/ further granted Rs.15,000/- towards funeral charges and daughter of the deceased towards loss of consortium. granting total compensation of Rs.10,19,000/ -). In the FAO-1560-2021 no argument whatsoever has been advanced by the learned counsel for the appellants sought higher compensation for the damage caused to the However, no cogent convincing evidence has been led by claimants to show that they have suffered any loss of business due to non may further be noticed that it was the pleaded case of the appellants that the deceased was an agriculturist. From Jamabandi s owner of 2 acres of agricultural land. Although no income was proved from the said land, the learned Tribunal held that the said land had devolved upon the claimants. As such, learned Tribunal had taken expenses of management of the said land to be Accordingly, income of the deceased was calculated per month (Rs.14,500/- as pension + Rs.2,000/- for managerial purposes of the agricultural land). As the claimants were two in was correctly made towards personal expenses. to be Rs.11,000/-; and annual income was x 12). As the deceased was 61 years old, multiplier of 7 was correctly applied. Thus, taking annual (Rs.1,32,000/- x 7). Learned Tribunal towards funeral charges; and Rs.40,000/- each of the deceased towards loss of consortium. Thus, ,000/- (Rs.9,24,000/- + Rs.15,000/- no argument whatsoever has been advanced by the learned counsel for the appellants. Claimants have damage caused to their Toyota no cogent convincing evidence has been led by claimants to show that they have suffered any loss of business due to non- 7 case of the appellants that the deceased was an agriculturist. From Jamabandi s owner of 2 acres of agricultural land. Although no income was proved from the said land, the learned Tribunal held that the said land had devolved upon the claimants. As such, learned Tribunal had taken expenses of management of the said land to be Accordingly, income of the deceased was calculated for two in was correctly made towards personal expenses. was 61 l x 7). Learned Tribunal each Thus, - SUNENA 2025.03.24 18:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document plying of their vehicle on account of damages caused to it. Gurjinder Singh CW2 has proved his report (Ex.C1) whereby he assess Innova vehicle as Rs.2,45,420/ Rs.3,000/-. As such, no ground is made out to enhance the compensation of ₹2,45,420/ 9. compensation has been awarded to the appellant has been shown to this Court that would merit enhancement of the compensation granted to the appellant discussion above, I find no case is 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 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 ‘ 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 pittance. Thus, 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 plying of their vehicle on account of damages caused to it. Gurjinder Singh CW2 has proved his report (Ex.C1) whereby he assess Innova vehicle as Rs.2,45,420/- after deducting the salvage value of As such, no ground is made out to enhance the compensation ₹2,45,420/– awarded by the learned Tribunal. From the above facts, it is clear that a compensation has been awarded to the appellant has been shown to this Court that would merit enhancement of the compensation granted to the appellants. discussion above, 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-12 of the Act is a beneficial legislation yet, as cautioned by 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 ‘ Haryana & Another Vs. Jasbir Kaur & Others’ Law Finder Doc ID # 64043 ‘Divisional Controller K.S.R.T.C. Vs. Mahadev Shetty’, (2003) 7 SCC 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, 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 plying of their vehicle on account of damages caused to it. Gurjinder Singh CW2 has proved his report (Ex.C1) whereby he assessed the loss caused to after deducting the salvage value of As such, no ground is made out to enhance the compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal. 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 . Accordingly, in view of the 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 12 of the Act is a beneficial legislation yet, as cautioned by 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 ‘Divisional Controller K.S.R.T.C. Vs. Mahadev Shetty’, (2003) 7 SCC 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 7 SUNENA 2025.03.24 18:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document law laid down warrant the interference of this Court. In the case of KSRTC Vs. Susamma Thomas & Others” 1994 Volume Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that misplaced sympathy, generosity benevolence cannot be the guiding factor for determining the compensation. 10. or controvert the aforesaid facts and findings. 11. dismissed. 12. 18.03.2025 Sunena Whether speaking/reasoned: Whether reportable: law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and therefore, does not warrant the interference of this Court. In the case of KSRTC Vs. Susamma Thomas & Others” 1994 Volume Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that misplaced sympathy, generosity 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 findings. In view of the above, both the Pending application(s) if any also stand(s) disposed of. Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether reportable: Yes/No by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and therefore, does not warrant the interference of this Court. In the case of “General Manager, KSRTC Vs. Susamma Thomas & Others” 1994 Volume-II SCC 176, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that misplaced sympathy, generosity and benevolence cannot be the guiding factor for determining the Learned counsel for the appellants is unable to dispute or controvert the aforesaid facts and findings. both the present appeals are Pending application(s) if any also stand(s) disposed of. (Nidhi Gupta) Judge 7 SUNENA 2025.03.24 18:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document