FAO-4603 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 232 Charanjeet Kaur and others Paramjit Singh and others CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA Present: - NIDHI GUPTA, J. CM-15478 Limitation Act, 1963 is for condonation of delay of accompanying appeal. of delay of appellants condonation of the appeal. FAO-4603 1. the Award dated 15.05.2018 passed by the learned Motor Accident 4603-2019 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Charanjeet Kaur and others Versus Paramjit Singh and others CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA Mr. KP Singh, Advocate for the appellants. NIDHI GUPTA, J. 15478-CII-2019 Prayer in this application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 is for condonation of delay of accompanying appeal. Heard. The only ground for cited in the application for condonation of delay of 320 days days in filing the accompanying appeal is that appellants were not aware about the limitation The said reason does not constitute sufficient ground for condonation of extraordinary and inordinate appeal. Present application accordingly stands 4603-2019 (O&M) Challenge in the present appeal filed by the claimants is to the Award dated 15.05.2018 passed by the learned Motor Accident IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO-4603-2019 (O&M) Date of Decision: 05.05.2025 .…Appellants ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA KP Singh, Advocate for the appellants. Prayer in this application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 is for condonation of delay of 320 days in filing the The only ground for cited in the application for condonation days in filing the accompanying appeal is that ‘the were not aware about the limitation’. The said reason does not constitute sufficient ground for extraordinary and inordinate delay of 320 days in filing Present application accordingly stands dismissed. Challenge in the present appeal filed by the claimants is to the Award dated 15.05.2018 passed by the learned Motor Accident Prayer in this application filed under Section 5 of the days in filing the The only ground for cited in the application for condonation ‘the days in filing Challenge in the present appeal filed by the claimants is to the Award dated 15.05.2018 passed by the learned Motor Accident RISHU KATARIA 2025.05.07 14:16 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. FAO-4603 Claims Tribunal, SAS Nagar Mohali (hereinafter referred t learned Tribunal’) whereby the claim petition bearing MACT Case No. 217 dated 09.11.2016, of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, have been granted compensation of i) parents and ii) sister of stated to be 2 2. basis of pleadings and evidence add deceased-Jagmeet Singh @ Jaggi him in a motor vehicular accident that took place on rash and negligent driving of D-0472 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the offending vehicle’) respondent No. Kumar; and insured by Tribunal awarded compensation as above along with inter annum from the date of filing the claim petition till actual realization. The amount of compensation is apportioned amongst the claimants as under: 1.Charanjeet Kaur, mother 2. Surinder Singh, father 3.Pri sister 3. compensation only on the ground that income of the deceased has been assessed by the learned Tribunal on the lower side as It is submitted that the work of repairing electric appliance 4603-2019 (O&M) -2- Claims Tribunal, SAS Nagar Mohali (hereinafter referred t learned Tribunal’) whereby the claim petition bearing MACT Case No. 217 dated 09.11.2016, filed by the appellant of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, has been allowed; and the ve been granted compensation of ₹12,39,660. The 03 claimants are the: i) parents and ii) sister of deceased-Jagmeet Singh @ Jaggi stated to be 20 years old at the time of accident. Brief facts of the case are that the learned Tribunal on the basis of pleadings and evidence adduced before it concluded that Jagmeet Singh @ Jaggi, had died in a motor vehicular accident that took place on rash and negligent driving of Tata Truck bearing registration (hereinafter referred to as ‘the offending vehicle’) respondent No.1-Paramjit Singh; owned by respondent No. 2 and insured by respondent No. 3 Tribunal awarded compensation as above along with inter annum from the date of filing the claim petition till actual realization. The amount of compensation is apportioned amongst the claimants as under: Charanjeet Kaur, mother ₹4,39,6 Surinder Singh, father ₹4,00,000/ Priyadeep @ Monika, sister ₹4,00,000/ Learned counsel for the appellants seeks enhancement of compensation only on the ground that income of the deceased has been assessed by the learned Tribunal on the lower side as It is submitted that the deceased-Jagmeet Singh @ Jaggi work of repairing electric appliances at Claims Tribunal, SAS Nagar Mohali (hereinafter referred to as ‘the learned Tribunal’) whereby the claim petition bearing MACT Case No. filed by the appellant-claimants under Section 166 has been allowed; and the claimants 12,39,660. The 03 claimants are the: Jagmeet Singh @ Jaggi who was years old at the time of accident. Brief facts of the case are that the learned Tribunal on the uced before it concluded that , had died due to the injuries suffered by in a motor vehicular accident that took place on 03.12.2015 due to the Tata Truck bearing registration No. HR-37- (hereinafter referred to as ‘the offending vehicle’) being driven by ; owned by respondent No. 2-Vikas respondent No. 3-Insurance Company. Learned Tribunal awarded compensation as above along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing the claim petition till actual realization. The amount of compensation is apportioned amongst the claimants as under:- 600/- 4,00,000/- 4,00,000/- Learned counsel for the appellants seeks enhancement of compensation only on the ground that income of the deceased has been assessed by the learned Tribunal on the lower side as ₹8000/- per month. Jagmeet Singh @ Jaggi, was doing the s at his house and was earning o as ‘the learned Tribunal’) whereby the claim petition bearing MACT Case No. claimants under Section 166 12,39,660. The 03 claimants are the: who was Brief facts of the case are that the learned Tribunal on the uced before it concluded that due to the injuries suffered by the by Vikas Learned % per annum from the date of filing the claim petition till actual realization. The Learned counsel for the appellants seeks enhancement of compensation only on the ground that income of the deceased has been per month. , was doing the his house and was earning RISHU KATARIA 2025.05.07 14:16 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. FAO-4603 ₹20,000/- per month. In support, the appellants examined PW Singh, Sarpanch of village Kanspur, who tendered his affidavit Ex. 3/A, stating therein that after matriculation, the deceased had started work of repa ₹20,000/- per month by the learned Tribunal towards consor accordingly, prayed that the impugned Award be modified and the amount of compensation so awarded by the learned Tribunal be enhanced. 4. 5. the case file in great detail. 6. of the appellant deceased-Jagmeet Singh @ Jaggi was doing the work of repairing electric appliances and was earning relied upon evidence of PW However, admittedly, no documentary proof of alleged income of the deceased has been produced by the appellants. Only on the basis of oral testimony, income of the deceased cannot be taken as month. As such, notional income of the 7. the time of accident on the basis of Aadhar Card (Ex. P addition of learned Tribunal 4603-2019 (O&M) -3- per month. In support, the appellants examined PW Singh, Sarpanch of village Kanspur, who tendered his affidavit Ex. , stating therein that after matriculation, the deceased had started work of repairing electric appliances at his house and was earning per month. It is also submitted that nothing has been awarded by the learned Tribunal towards consor accordingly, prayed that the impugned Award be modified and the amount of compensation so awarded by the learned Tribunal be enhanced. No other argument is raised on behalf of the appellant I have heard learned counsel for the appellant the case file in great detail. I find no merit in the aforesaid submissions of the appellants. It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that Jagmeet Singh @ Jaggi was doing the work of repairing electric appliances and was earning ₹20,000/- per month relied upon evidence of PW-3 Surinder Singh, Sarpanch of However, admittedly, no documentary proof of alleged income of the has been produced by the appellants. Only on the basis of oral testimony, income of the deceased cannot be taken as As such, I find that the learned Tribunal has rightly assessed the notional income of the deceased as ₹8,000/ Further, age of the deceased was determined as 20 years at the time of accident on the basis of Aadhar Card (Ex. P addition of 40% towards future prospects ha learned Tribunal in conformity with the law as laid down by the Hon’ble per month. In support, the appellants examined PW-3 Surinder Singh, Sarpanch of village Kanspur, who tendered his affidavit Ex. PW- , stating therein that after matriculation, the deceased had started the iring electric appliances at his house and was earning submitted that nothing has been awarded by the learned Tribunal towards consortium to the claimants. It is accordingly, prayed that the impugned Award be modified and the amount of compensation so awarded by the learned Tribunal be enhanced. No other argument is raised on behalf of the appellants. el for the appellants and perused aforesaid submissions made on behalf It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that Jagmeet Singh @ Jaggi was doing the work of repairing electric per month. The appellants have 3 Surinder Singh, Sarpanch of the village. However, admittedly, no documentary proof of alleged income of the has been produced by the appellants. Only on the basis of oral testimony, income of the deceased cannot be taken as ₹20,000/- per ed Tribunal has rightly assessed the 8,000/- per month. Further, age of the deceased was determined as 20 years at the time of accident on the basis of Aadhar Card (Ex. P-11). Thus, prospects has been correctly made by the in conformity with the law as laid down by the Hon’ble 3 Surinder the iring electric appliances at his house and was earning submitted that nothing has been awarded to the claimants. It is accordingly, prayed that the impugned Award be modified and the made on behalf It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that Jagmeet Singh @ Jaggi was doing the work of repairing electric appellants have the village. However, admittedly, no documentary proof of alleged income of the has been produced by the appellants. Only on the basis of oral per ed Tribunal has rightly assessed the Further, age of the deceased was determined as 20 years at Thus, by the in conformity with the law as laid down by the Hon’ble RISHU KATARIA 2025.05.07 14:16 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. FAO-4603 Supreme Court in Sethi and others, (2017) 16 SCC 680 deceased comes of accident, t towards personal expenses ₹5600/-; and annual dependency @ deceased was correctly been applied as Court in Sarla Verma Doc Id # 188882 to be ₹12,09,600/ an amount of funeral expenses. claimants comes 8. of consortium and 3respectively @ Jaggi would be firstly the father of the deceased. 9. Court in (SC) SLP No.13931 of 2017 Ltd. Vs. Vinish Jain & Others held that where difference in compensation is about 4 to 5 per cent only, it does not warrant interference by this Court as, such variation in compensation is within permissible limits. 4603-2019 (O&M) -4- Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay and others, (2017) 16 SCC 680.Thus, monthly income of the comes to₹11,200/-. As the deceased was of accident, the learned Tribunal correctly personal expenses; calculating ; and annual dependency @ ₹67,200/ sed was 20 years of age at the time of accident, multiplier of 18 has correctly been applied as per law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Sarla Verma vs. Delhi Transport Corporation, 188882; and the compensation payable to the claimants worked 12,09,600/- (67,200 x 18).The learned Tribunal has further granted an amount of ₹15,000/- towards loss of estate and funeral expenses. The total compensation, therefore, payable to the claimants comes to ₹12,39,600/- (₹12,09,600/ No doubt, nothing has been awarded to the of consortium. However, it is to be seen that claimant respectively being the mother and sister of would be firstly dependent upon claimant/appellant No. 2, who is the father of the deceased. Even otherwise, as per judgment of the (SC) SLP No.13931 of 2017 titled as Vs. Vinish Jain & Others Law Finder Doc ID # 977386 held that where difference in compensation is about 4 to 5 per cent only, it does not warrant interference by this Court as, such variation in compensation is within permissible limits. National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Thus, monthly income of the . As the deceased was a bachelor at the time he learned Tribunal correctly made a deduction of 50% the monthly dependency @ 67,200/- (5600 x 12). As the years of age at the time of accident, multiplier of 18 has laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme vs. Delhi Transport Corporation, Law Finder payable to the claimants worked The learned Tribunal has further granted towards loss of estate and₹15,000/- towards The total compensation, therefore, payable to the 12,09,600/- + ₹15,000/- +₹15,000/-). No doubt, nothing has been awarded to the claimants by way . However, it is to be seen that claimant/appellants No. 1 being the mother and sister of deceased-Jagmeet Singh upon claimant/appellant No. 2, who is Even otherwise, as per judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme titled as New India Assurance Co. Law Finder Doc ID # 977386, it has been held that where difference in compensation is about 4 to 5 per cent only, it does not warrant interference by this Court as, such variation in National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Thus, monthly income of the achelor at the time % the monthly dependency @ s the years of age at the time of accident, multiplier of 18 has laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Law Finder payable to the claimants worked The learned Tribunal has further granted towards The total compensation, therefore, payable to the by way No. 1 Jagmeet Singh upon claimant/appellant No. 2, who is Hon’ble Supreme New India Assurance Co. it has been held that where difference in compensation is about 4 to 5 per cent only, it does not warrant interference by this Court as, such variation in RISHU KATARIA 2025.05.07 14:16 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. FAO-4603 10. been followed by the Kerala High Court in Divisional Controller Versus Alikutty and Others 1885188. Relevant para 18 of the said judgment is reproduced 11. Court in Reliance General Insurance Company Limited Others, Law Finder Doc ID as under:- 12. compensation has been awarded to the appellant. Nothing has been shown to this Court that would merit interference with the impugned Award. I find the compensation awarded to the appellant fair in the facts and circumstances of the case. No doubt Chapter 4603-2019 (O&M) -5- This above-said judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court has been followed by the Kerala High Court in Divisional Controller Versus Alikutty and Others . Relevant para 18 of the said judgment is reproduced “18. It is to be borne in mind, the accident occurred on 23,2,2019. It is more than 2 ½ years since the respondents 1 to 4 have been knocking at the doors of the Courts seeking compensation on account of the death of the bread-winner. It is trite permitted to do some guess work and also exercise its discretion to fix the reasonable and just compensation, for which there cannot be any straitjacket formula based on mathematical precision. In Company Vs. Vinish Jain and Others [(2018) 3 SCC 619], the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that if the fixation of compensation is within permissible limits, the courts should normally not interfere with such awards”. Above said view has been reiterated by the Kera Reliance General Insurance Company Limited Others, Law Finder Doc ID # 1921609, paras “16. The other area of dispute is that the Tribunal after awarding compensation under the conventional has awarded Rs.75,000/- towards loss of love and affection and Rs.10,000/- awarded towards pain and sufferings. 17. In New India Assurance Co., Ltd v. Vineesh. (3) SCC 619], the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the Appellate Court can perm minus 4 to 5 percent.” From the above facts, it is clear that a very just and fair compensation has been awarded to the appellant. Nothing has been shown to this Court that would merit interference with the impugned find the compensation awarded to the appellant fair in the facts and circumstances of the case. No doubt Chapter said judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court has been followed by the Kerala High Court in The Managing Director, Divisional Controller Versus Alikutty and Others, Law Finder Doc Id # . Relevant para 18 of the said judgment is reproduced below:- “18. It is to be borne in mind, the accident occurred on 23,2,2019. It is more than 2 ½ years since the respondents 1 to 4 have been knocking at the doors of the Courts seeking compensation on account of the death of winner. It is trite law that the Tribunal is permitted to do some guess work and also exercise its discretion to fix the reasonable and just compensation, for which there cannot be any straitjacket formula based on mathematical precision. In New India Assurance Jain and Others [(2018) 3 SCC Supreme Court has held that if the fixation of compensation is within permissible limits, the courts should normally not interfere with such awards”. Above said view has been reiterated by the Kerala High Reliance General Insurance Company Limited Vs. Adila and paras 16 and 17 of which read 16. The other area of dispute is that the Tribunal after awarding compensation under the conventional heads towards loss of love and awarded towards pain and 17. In New India Assurance Co., Ltd v. Vineesh. J [2018 (3) SCC 619], the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the Appellate Court can permit variation of plus or From the above facts, it is clear that a very just and fair compensation has been awarded to the appellant. Nothing has been shown to this Court that would merit interference with the impugned find the compensation awarded to the appellants to be just and fair in the facts and circumstances of the case. No doubt Chapter-12 of said judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court has The Managing Director, Law Finder Doc Id # RISHU KATARIA 2025.05.07 14:16 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. FAO-4603 the Act is a beneficial legislation yet, as cautioned by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the same cannot be allowed to be trea or a source of profit. Hon’ble Supreme Court in Another Vs. Jasbir Kaur & Others 64043 and (2003) 7 SCC 197 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 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, KSRTC Vs. Susamma Thomas & Others Volume-II SCC 176 misplaced sympathy, generosity and benevolence cannot be the guiding factor for determining the compensation 13. that merits interference dismissed. 14. 05.05.2025 rishu 4603-2019 (O&M) -6- the Act is a beneficial legislation yet, as cautioned by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the same cannot be allowed to be trea or a source of profit. Hon’ble Supreme Court in Another Vs. Jasbir Kaur & Others, Divisional Controller K.S.R.T.C. Vs. MahadevShetty’, (2003) 7 SCC 197, has held that the amount of compensa 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 neral Manager, KSRTC Vs. Susamma Thomas & Others 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. In view of the discussion above, I find no case is made out that merits interference with the impugned Award. . Pending application(s) if any also stand(s) disposed of. .2025 Whether speaking/reasoned Whether Reportable 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 State of Haryana & , Law Finder Doc ID # Divisional Controller K.S.R.T.C. Vs. MahadevShetty’, 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 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 neral Manager, KSRTC Vs. Susamma Thomas & Others, 1994 the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that misplaced sympathy, generosity and benevolence cannot be the guiding above, I find no case is made out with the impugned Award. The appeal is Pending application(s) if any also stand(s) disposed of. ( NIDHI GUPTA ) JUDGE Yes/No Yes/No above, I find no case is made out appeal is RISHU KATARIA 2025.05.07 14:16 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment.