IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 281 Baljit Kaur & Others Karamjit Singh & Another CORAM: Present:- NIDHI GUPTA, J. enhancement of compensation of Rs. Claims Tribunal, No.179 dated 07.12.2020 1988. The 4 claimants are the widow, 28 22-year-old daughter of 2. the basis of pleadings and oral & documentary evidence adduced before it concluded that the by him in a motor vehicular accident that took place on the rash and negligent driving of truck bearing registration No. 9912(hereinafter referred to as “the offending vehicle”) by respondent No.1. The offending vehicle was owned by respondent No.2 3. appellant seeks enhancement of compensation is that nothing has been granted by way of consortium to claimants/appellants No.2 to 4 i.e. the children of the d 4. IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Baljit Kaur & Others Vs. jit Singh & Another HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA Mr. Vishal Satija, Advocate for the appellants. *** NIDHI GUPTA, J. Present appeal has been filed by claimant enhancement of compensation of Rs.5,44,117 Claims Tribunal, Sangrur vide Award dated No.179 dated 07.12.2020 filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, The 4 claimants are the widow, 28-year daughter of the deceased Mela Singh 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 Mela Singh had in a motor vehicular accident that took place on the rash and negligent driving of truck bearing registration No. (hereinafter referred to as “the offending vehicle”) by respondent No.1. The offending vehicle was owned by resp respondent No.2. The only ground on which learned counsel for the appellant seeks enhancement of compensation is that nothing has been granted by way of consortium to claimants/appellants No.2 to 4 i.e. the children of the deceased Mela Singh. No other argument is made on behalf of the IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO-3914-2023(O&M) Date of decision: 18.03.2025 ...Appellant(s) ...Respondent(s) HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA , Advocate appeal has been filed by claimants seeking 5,44,117/- granted by Motor Accident vide Award dated 07.02.2023 passed in MACP filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, year-old son, 24-year-old son, and deceased Mela Singh. 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 injuries suffered in a motor vehicular accident that took place on 15.10.2020 due to the rash and negligent driving of truck bearing registration No.PB-13-BJ- (hereinafter referred to as “the offending vehicle”) by respondent respondent No.1 and insured by on which learned counsel for the appellant seeks enhancement of compensation is that nothing has been granted by way of consortium to claimants/appellants No.2 to 4 i.e. the No other argument is made on behalf of the appellants. 4 seeking granted by Motor Accident MACP filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, and Brief facts of the case are that the learned Tribunal on the basis of pleadings and oral & documentary evidence adduced before it suffered due to - (hereinafter referred to as “the offending vehicle”) by respondent ondent No.1 and insured by on which learned counsel for the appellant seeks enhancement of compensation is that nothing has been granted by way of consortium to claimants/appellants No.2 to 4 i.e. the SUNENA 2025.03.21 15:56 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 5. perused the case file in great detail. 6. impugned Award as perusal of the file reveals that circumstances of the case, awarded to the appellants deceased, his age was taken to be 63 years deceased was working in IAL Factory and earning Rs.7,500/ Although no learned Tribunal has taken income of the deceased as Rs.7,500/ month; thereby calculating his annual income to be Rs.90,000/ deceased was more than 60 years of age, the learned Tribunal had relied upon Constitution Bench judgment of Insurance Company Ltd. VS. Pranay Sethi & Others” Law Finder Doc ID # 918174, to hold that no future prospects were to be awarded. were 4 claimants, the learned Tribunal had made deduction of 1/4 towards person No.2 to 4 were aged 28, 24 and 22 years respectively and were major, their dependency on the deceased was not proven, at least 1/3rd as it may, multiplier of 7 was correctly applied as the deceased was 63 years of age. The learned Tribunal further granted Rs.15,000/ expenses and loss of estate; and Rs.40,000/ Tribunal had further granted medical expenses of Rs.1,617/ the appellants 7. claimants no.2 in the said argument of the appellant Supreme Court Rawat & Others” Civil Appeal Nos.2410 2251622 and “ I have heard learned counsel for the perused the case file in great detail. I find no ground is made out to interfere in the impugned Award as perusal of the file reveals that circumstances of the case, a very just and fair compensation has been awarded to the appellants, as follows. On the basis of Aadhaar Card of deceased, his age was taken to be 63 years deceased was working in IAL Factory and earning Rs.7,500/ Although no proof of income was produced by the learned Tribunal has taken income of the deceased as Rs.7,500/ thereby calculating his annual income to be Rs.90,000/ deceased was more than 60 years of age, the learned Tribunal had relied Constitution Bench judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Insurance Company Ltd. VS. Pranay Sethi & Others” Law Finder Doc ID # to hold that no future prospects were to be awarded. were 4 claimants, the learned Tribunal had made deduction of 1/4 towards personal expenses. However, it is my view that as the claimants No.2 to 4 were aged 28, 24 and 22 years respectively and were major, dependency on the deceased was not proven, rd ought to have been made towards person as it may, multiplier of 7 was correctly applied as the deceased was 63 years of age. The learned Tribunal further granted Rs.15,000/ expenses and loss of estate; and Rs.40,000/ ad further granted medical expenses of Rs.1,617/ the appellants entitled for compensation of Rs.5,44,117/ It has been contended on behalf of the appellant that claimants no.2 to 4 were entitled to consortium. However, I find no merit in the said argument of the appellants as, it has been Supreme Court in “Shri Ram General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Bhagat Singh Others” Civil Appeal Nos.2410-2412/2023 Law Finder Doc ID # and “Mehmooda Bee & Others Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd.” I have heard learned counsel for the appellants and I find no ground is made out to interfere in the impugned Award as perusal of the file reveals that in the fact and a very just and fair compensation has been On the basis of Aadhaar Card of the deceased, his age was taken to be 63 years. As per the claimants, the deceased was working in IAL Factory and earning Rs.7,500/- per month. proof of income was produced by the appellants, yet the learned Tribunal has taken income of the deceased as Rs.7,500/- per thereby calculating his annual income to be Rs.90,000/-. As the deceased was more than 60 years of age, the learned Tribunal had relied Hon’ble Supreme Court in “National Insurance Company Ltd. VS. Pranay Sethi & Others” Law Finder Doc ID # to hold that no future prospects were to be awarded. As there were 4 claimants, the learned Tribunal had made deduction of 1/4th al expenses. However, it is my view that as the claimants No.2 to 4 were aged 28, 24 and 22 years respectively and were major, and dependency on the deceased was not proven, therefore deduction of ought to have been made towards personal expenses. Be that as it may, multiplier of 7 was correctly applied as the deceased was 63 years of age. The learned Tribunal further granted Rs.15,000/- each for funeral expenses and loss of estate; and Rs.40,000/- for consortium. The learned ad further granted medical expenses of Rs.1,617/-. Thus, holding for compensation of Rs.5,44,117/-. has been contended on behalf of the appellant that were entitled to consortium. However, I find no merit , it has been held by the Hon’ble Shri Ram General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Bhagat Singh 2412/2023 Law Finder Doc ID # Mehmooda Bee & Others Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd.” 4 and I find no ground is made out to interfere in the in the fact and a very just and fair compensation has been the . As per the claimants, the per month. yet the per . As the deceased was more than 60 years of age, the learned Tribunal had relied “National Insurance Company Ltd. VS. Pranay Sethi & Others” Law Finder Doc ID # As there th al expenses. However, it is my view that as the claimants and deduction of al expenses. Be that as it may, multiplier of 7 was correctly applied as the deceased was 63 years each for funeral . The learned . Thus, holding SUNENA 2025.03.21 15:56 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document (@ SLP (C) No.16767 of 2022) Law Finder Doc ID # 2070774 Giri Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd.” Civil Appeal No.6551 o Finder Doc ID # 2070826, under the conventional heads. has been granted under the convention heads. As such, no ground for interference is made out. 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 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 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 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. 9. (@ SLP (C) No.16767 of 2022) Law Finder Doc ID # 2070774 Giri Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd.” Civil Appeal No.6551 o Finder Doc ID # 2070826, that a total sum of Rs.77,000/ under the conventional heads. In the present case, an amount of has been granted under the convention heads. As such, no ground for interference is made out. From the above facts, it is clear that a very just and fair 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 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 ‘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 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. In view of the above, present appeal is (@ SLP (C) No.16767 of 2022) Law Finder Doc ID # 2070774 and “Bebi Giri Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd.” Civil Appeal No.6551 of 2022 Law total sum of Rs.77,000/- is to be granted In the present case, an amount of ₹70,000 has been granted under the convention heads. As such, no ground for 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 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 cial 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 ‘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 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 In view of the above, present appeal is dismissed. 4 SUNENA 2025.03.21 15:56 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 10. 18.03.2025 Sunena Whether speaking/reasoned: Whether reportable: Pending application(s) if any also stand(s) disposed of. Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether reportable: Yes/No Pending application(s) if any also stand(s) disposed of. (Nidhi Gupta) Judge 4 SUNENA 2025.03.21 15:56 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document