FAO-1551 IN THE HIG 124 Anita and ot Neeraj and o CORAM: H Present: - NIDHI GUP CM-4843-C 1. Limitation A delay of 31 2. 3. supported by filing the pre FAO-1551 1. enhancemen learned Mo learned Trib petition bear of the Motor widow; ii) 51-2025 (O&M) -1- HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HA and others Versus and others M: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDH Mr. Shakti Mehta, Advocate for I GUPTA, J. CII-2025 Prayer in this application fil tion Act, 1963 read with section 15 31 days in filing the accompanying Heard. For the reasons mentioned i rted by an affidavit, the same is allow present appeal is condoned. 1551-2025 The appellant-claimants have fi cement of the compensation amount of d Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, d Tribunal) vide impugned Award n bearing MACP No. 352 dated 14.07 Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The 04 cla ; ii) 17-year-old son; iii) 16-year- D HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO-1551-2025 (O&M) Date of Decision:25.02.2026 .…Appellants ....Respondents NIDHI GUPTA ate for the appellants. on filed under Section 5 of the 151 CPC is for condonation of nying appeal. ned in the application which is is allowed and delay of 31 days in ave filed the present appeal seeking ount of ₹25,90,500/- awarded by the ibunal, Chandigarh (for short-‘the ward dated 14.10.2024, passed in 14.07.2021 filed under Section 166 claimants are the: i) 41-year-old -old son; and iv) 64-year-old the n of h is s in king the ‘the d in 166 old old RISHU KATARIA 2026.02.26 19:59 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. FAO-1551 mother of de around 44 ye 2. basis of pl deceased-Vi motor vehic negligent d (hereinafter by responde Insurance Co with interest till actual re liable to pay 3. sought enhan been assesse for the appe running a income was Grounds of the ground t ₹1,00,000/- Affection; an 4. have heard l 51-2025 (O&M) -2- of deceased-Vijender Kumar @ Baj years at the time of accident. Brief facts of the case are that of pleadings and evidence adduce Vijender Kumar, had died due to vehicular accident that took place o ent driving of Truck bearing regi nafter ‘the offending vehicle’) by res spondent No. 2-Asha Devi; and ins nce Company. Ld. Tribunal awarded nterest @ 7% per annum from the da tual realization. All respondents wer to pay the compensation. The only ground on which t t enhancement of compensation is tha ssessed on the lower side as ₹15,000/ e appellants submits that prior to the a Readymade Garment Shop at Ba e was ₹4,85,000/-. Although it is not ds of Appeal shows that the appellant ound that future prospects ought to h - each should have been awarded ion; and that interest ought to been aw No other argument is raised o eard learned counsel and perused the @ Bajender Kumar, who was aged re that the learned Tribunal on the dduced before it concluded that ue to injuries, suffered by him in a lace on 07.04.2021due to rash and g registration No. HP-11-A-5826 by respondent No.1-Neeraj; owned nd insured by respondent No. 3- arded compensation as above along the date of filing the claim petition ts were held jointly and severally hich the appellant-claimants have is that income of the deceased has 5,000/- per month. Learned counsel to the accident, the deceased was at Baltana from which his annual is not argued, but a perusal of the ellants have sought enhancement on t to have been added @ 30%; that arded under the head of Love and en awarded @ 12% per annum. ised on behalf of the appellants. I sed the case file in detail. I find no ged the that in a and ned long ition ave has nsel was nual the t on that and I d no RISHU KATARIA 2026.02.26 19:59 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. FAO-1551 merit in the claimants. 5. the appellan accident dec from which their case, t deceased for 6, which sh ₹2,48,780/- 07.04.2021. deceased for have not be appellant ha correctly ass following rea 51-2025 (O&M) -3- in the submissions made by learne Perusal of the record shows th pellant-claimants before the learned nt deceased was running a Readyma hich the annual income of the deceas case, the appellants have produced ed for the Assessment Year 2016-17 E ich showed the annual income of d - respectively. Admittedly, the 2021. On a Court query as to why th ed for the preceding 03 years i.e. 20 not been produced by the appellan ant has no reply. In this circumstan tly assessed income of the deceased a reasons: - “9. ....The Income Tax Re deceased Vijender Kumar alia taken into consideration for ass of death, because there is no c apparently fluctuating as evid were filed by him in the immediately preceding his d deceased Vijender Kumar a engaged in Readymade Garme demise in 2021 and despite the earnings he demonstrates goo supporting his family well. In income this Tribunal aims to learned counsel for the appellant- ws that it was the pleaded case of learned Tribunal that prior to the dymade Garment Shop at Baltana, deceased was ₹4,85,000/-. To prove uced Income Tax Returns of the 17 Ex. P-5; and 2017-18 as Ex.P- e of deceased as ₹2,41,740/- and y, the deceased had expired on hy the Income Tax Returns of the 2018-19, 2019-20 and 2020-21 ppellants, learned counsel for the mstance, the learned Tribunal has ased as ₹15,000/- per month for the Returns Ex.P5 and Ex.P6 of alias Bajender Kumar cannot be r assessing his income at the time no continuity and his income was evidently no income tax returns he later years for the period is death. But in any case the r alias Bajender Kumar was rment business until his untimely the fluctuation being there in his good financial status since was l. In determining the deceased’s to strike a balance between the e of the ana, rove the and on the 21 the has r the of be me as ns od he as ely his as ’s he RISHU KATARIA 2026.02.26 19:59 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. FAO-1551 6. Thus, incom per month. 7. deceased as Report. Acco towards fut Supreme Co Sethi and ot 14as per law vs. Delhi Tra 8. personal exp Tribunal. awarded an spousal con (claimants N learned Trib funeral expe 51-2025 (O&M) -4- earnings of a skilled worker a with entrepreneurial expertise Tribunal considers it to be just of the deceased is assessed som a skilled labour in the given fac in the light of above discussed income of deceased as Rs. 1500 I find no error in the aforesai income of the deceased has been co Further, the learned Tribunal h ed as 44 years at the time of acciden t. Accordingly, the Tribunal had corre s future prospects in conformity me Court in National Insurance C d others, (2017) 16 SCC 680; and er law laid down by the Hon’ble Su i Transport Corporation, Law Find As there were 04 claimants al expenses of the deceased was co . Under the Conventional Heads ed an amount of ₹48,000/- to each of l consortium (claimant No. 1-w ants No. 2 and 3); and filial conso d Tribunal has further awarded an a l expenses and ₹18,000/- towards los er and those of a business owner rtise. And while doing so this st and appropriate if the income somewhat exceeding as to that of n facts and circumstances. As such ssed facts this Tribunal assess the 15000/- per month.” foresaid reasoning of the Tribunal. en correctly assessed as ₹15,000/– unal had determined the age of the ccident on the basis of Postmortem correctly made an addition of 25% rmity with judgment of Hon’ble e Company Limited vs. Pranay ; and correctly applied multiplier of ble Supreme Court in Sarla Verma Finder Doc Id # 188882. imants, deduction of 1/4thtowards as correctly made by the learned Heads, the learned Tribunal had ach of the claimants towards loss of widow); parental consortium consortium (claimant No. 4). The d an amount of ₹18,000/- towards loss of estate. Thus, the learned er is me of ch he the rtem 25% ’ble r of a ards rned had s of tium The ards rned RISHU KATARIA 2026.02.26 19:59 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. FAO-1551 Tribunal had appellant-cla Annual G Rs.15000x12 Addition of of future pro the age of de Deduction of of personal view of size Multiplier of in view of h of death Compensatio account of de Loss of Estat Funeral expe Loss of spou Loss of paren Loss of filial Total Com with intere annum 9. compensatio shown to th Award. No d cautioned by be treated as State of Ha Doc ID MahadevSh compensatio bonanza nor pittance. Thu 51-2025 (O&M) -5- al had granted total amount of ₹25,90 claimants in following manner: - l Gross Income 00x12 ₹1,80,000/- on of 25% on account re prospects in view of of deceased 180000+4500 tion of 1/4th on account rsonal expenditure in f size of family 225000-5625 lier of 14 to be applied of his age at the time 168750x14=2 ensation payable on dependency ₹23,62,500/ f Estate ₹18,000/- l expenses ₹18,000/- f spousal consortium ₹48,000/- (cla f parental consortium ₹48,000x2= 3) f filial consortium ₹48,000/- (cla Compensation along interest @ 7% per ₹25,90,500/ From the above facts, it is cle nsation has been awarded to the ap to this Court that would merit inter . No doubt Chapter-12 of the Act is a ned by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, th ated as a windfall or a source of profit Haryana & Another Vs. Jasbir K D # 64043 and Divisional Co evShetty’, (2003) 7 SCC 197, has nsation should be just and reasonab za nor a source of profit but at the sa e. Thus, all that has to be determined 25,90,500/- as compensation to the +45000=2,25,000/- 56250=168750/- x14=23,62,500/- ,500/- (claimant No.1) 0x2=₹96,000/- (claimants No. 2 and (claimant No. 4) /- is clear that a very just and fair the appellants. Nothing has been it interference with the impugned ct is a beneficial legislation yet, as urt, the same cannot be allowed to profit. Hon’ble Supreme Court in ir Kaur & Others, Law Finder Controller K.S.R.T.C. Vs. has held that the amount of asonable, it should neither be a the same time it should not be a mined in the facts of a given case the and RISHU KATARIA 2026.02.26 19:59 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. FAO-1551 is, that the c the present compensatio Hon’ble Sup of this Cour Thomas & Court has h cannot be the 10. that merits dismissed. 11. 25.02.2026 rishu 51-2025 (O&M) -6- t the compensation accorded is ‘just’. resent case, the learned Tribunal h nsation, which is in accordance with le Supreme Court and therefore, does Court. In the case of General Mana s & Others, 1994 Volume-II SCC has held that misplaced sympathy, g t be the guiding factor for determining In view of the discussion abov erits interference with the impug . Pending application(s) if any als 2026 Whether speaking/reasoned Whether Reportable ‘just’. In my considered view, in unal has awarded a very ‘just’ e with the law laid down by the , does not warrant the interference anager, KSRTC Vs. Susamma SCC 176, the Hon’ble Supreme athy, generosity and benevolence ining the compensation. 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 out l is RISHU KATARIA 2026.02.26 19:59 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment.