IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 234 Kamaljeet Kaur Gaganpreet Singh CORAM: Present:- NIDHI GUPTA, J. enhancement of compensation of Rs. Accident Claims Tribunal, Tribunal”), vide Award dated under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”). The 3 daughter of the deceased Baljinder Singh. 2. basis of pleadings and oral & documentary evidence adduced before it concluded that IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Kamaljeet Kaur & Others Vs. Gaganpreet Singh & Others HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA Mr. Naveen Sharma (Moudgil) for the appellants. Ms. Manvi Verma, Advocate for Mr. Rajneesh Malhotra, Advocate for the respondent No.3. *** NIDHI GUPTA, J. Present appeal has been filed by the claimant enhancement of compensation of Rs.9,14,800 Accident Claims Tribunal, SAS Nagar, Mohali Tribunal”), vide Award dated 02.04.2019 under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act (hereinafter referred to as “the 3 claimants are the wife, 25- daughter of the deceased Baljinder Singh. Brief facts of the case are that the ld. Tribuna basis of pleadings and oral & documentary evidence adduced before it concluded that deceased Baljinder Singh IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO-5064-2019(O&M) Date of decision: 07.05.2025 ...Appellant(s) ...Respondent(s) HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA Naveen Sharma (Moudgil), Advocate s. Manvi Verma, Advocate for Mr. Rajneesh Malhotra, Advocate Present appeal has been filed by the claimants seeking 9,14,800/- awarded by the Motor (hereinafter referred to as “the passed in claim petition filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act (hereinafter referred to as “the -year-old son, and 27-year-old Brief facts of the case are that the ld. Tribunal on the basis of pleadings and oral & documentary evidence adduced before it had died due to the injuries 7 seeking awarded by the Motor (hereinafter referred to as “the filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act (hereinafter referred to as “the old l on the basis of pleadings and oral & documentary evidence adduced before it had died due to the injuries SUNENA 2025.05.09 10:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document suffered by him at about 11 am registration No. vehicle”) by respondent No.1. The offending vehicle was owned by respondent No.2 and insured by respondent No.3. The above compensation Respondents were held jointly and severally liable to pay the aforesaid compensation. 3. of compensation by has been taken on the lower side as only Rs.9,000/ submitted that the claimants had duly proved on record that the deceased was an agriculturist and was also running a dairy farm from which he was drawing monthly income of Rs.60, income of the deceased was also proved from the evidence of CW3 Clerk, Office of Tehsildar, Mohali deceased issued by the Tehsildar as per which the deceased was earning Rs.4,85,000/- owning 4 acres of agricultural land. Furthermore, CW4 CW5 Amarjit Singh had stated that they had leased out their land measuring 27 kanal each to the deceased vide Lease 06.07.2018 (Ex.CW4/B and Ex.CW5/B respectively). suffered by him in a motor vehicular accident that took place on am due to the rash and negligent driving of registration No.PB-65-AF-1425 (hereinafter referred to as “the offending vehicle”) by respondent No.1. The offending vehicle was owned by respondent No.2 and insured by respondent No.3. The above compensation was granted along with interest @ Respondents were held jointly and severally liable to pay the aforesaid compensation. Learned counsel for the appellant of compensation by inter alia submitting that the income of the has been taken on the lower side as only Rs.9,000/ submitted that the claimants had duly proved on record that the deceased was an agriculturist and was also running a dairy farm from which he was drawing monthly income of Rs.60,000/- per month. It is submitted that income of the deceased was also proved from the evidence of CW3 Clerk, Office of Tehsildar, Mohali who had proved(Ex.C1) deceased issued by the Tehsildar as per which the deceased was earning - per annum from agriculture. Moreover, the deceased was owning 4 acres of agricultural land. Furthermore, CW4 CW5 Amarjit Singh had stated that they had leased out their land measuring 27 kanal each to the deceased vide Lease 06.07.2018 (Ex.CW4/B and Ex.CW5/B respectively). in a motor vehicular accident that took place on 19.07.2018 d negligent driving of motorcycle bearing (hereinafter referred to as “the offending vehicle”) by respondent No.1. The offending vehicle was owned by respondent No.2 and insured by respondent No.3. The above-said was granted along with interest @ 9% per annum. Respondents were held jointly and severally liable to pay the aforesaid Learned counsel for the appellants seeks enhancement that the income of the deceased has been taken on the lower side as only Rs.9,000/- per month. It is submitted that the claimants had duly proved on record that the deceased was an agriculturist and was also running a dairy farm from which he was per month. It is submitted that income of the deceased was also proved from the evidence of CW3 Clerk, (Ex.C1) Income Certificate of the deceased issued by the Tehsildar as per which the deceased was earning per annum from agriculture. Moreover, the deceased was owning 4 acres of agricultural land. Furthermore, CW4 Ranjit Singh and CW5 Amarjit Singh had stated that they had leased out their land measuring 27 kanal each to the deceased vide Lease Deed dated 06.07.2018 (Ex.CW4/B and Ex.CW5/B respectively). The said witnesses have 7 19.07.2018 bearing (hereinafter referred to as “the offending vehicle”) by respondent No.1. The offending vehicle was owned by said % per annum. Respondents were held jointly and severally liable to pay the aforesaid seeks enhancement deceased per month. It is submitted that the claimants had duly proved on record that the deceased was an agriculturist and was also running a dairy farm from which he was per month. It is submitted that income of the deceased was also proved from the evidence of CW3 Clerk, Income Certificate of the deceased issued by the Tehsildar as per which the deceased was earning per annum from agriculture. Moreover, the deceased was Ranjit Singh and CW5 Amarjit Singh had stated that they had leased out their land Deed dated said witnesses have SUNENA 2025.05.09 10:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document also proved the Jamabandi (Ex.CW5/C) of the land owned by the deceased. The claimants had also produced receipts (Ex.C36) regarding supply of milk by the deceased. It is su income of the deceased could not have been taken as only Rs.9,000/ month. 4. in “National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Javinder Singh & Finder Doc ID # 2163454 on the basis of Minimum Wage and dairy farmers has to be taken as that of a counsel submits th income of the deceased month. 5. has not been granted. 6. Company controverts the submissions made on behalf of the appellants and submits that at the relevant time, even as per the Minimum Wage Notification, income of the deceased ought to have been Rs.7,852/ month. Thus higher side as Rs.9,000/ Award suffers from no error and prays for dismissal of the appeal. also proved the Jamabandi (Ex.CW5/C) of the land owned by the deceased. claimants had also produced receipts (Ex.C36) regarding supply of milk by the deceased. It is submitted that in face of this voluminous evidence, income of the deceased could not have been taken as only Rs.9,000/ It is further submitted that as per judgment of this Court “National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Javinder Singh & Finder Doc ID # 2163454, it is held that even if income is to be determined on the basis of Minimum Wages Notification, then income of agriculturists and dairy farmers has to be taken as that of a counsel submits that as per the relevant Minimum Wage Notification, income of the deceased ought to have been Even under the conventional heads, sufficient amount has not been granted. Learned counsel for respondent No.3/Insurance Company controverts the submissions made on behalf of the appellants and submits that at the relevant time, even as per the Minimum Wage Notification, income of the deceased ought to have been Rs.7,852/ Thus, income of the deceased has already been assessed on the higher side as Rs.9,000/- per month. It is submitted that the impugned Award suffers from no error and prays for dismissal of the appeal. also proved the Jamabandi (Ex.CW5/C) of the land owned by the deceased. claimants had also produced receipts (Ex.C36) regarding supply of milk bmitted that in face of this voluminous evidence, income of the deceased could not have been taken as only Rs.9,000/- per It is further submitted that as per judgment of this Court “National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Javinder Singh & Others” Law it is held that even if income is to be determined Notification, then income of agriculturists and dairy farmers has to be taken as that of a ‘highly skilled worker’. Ld. at as per the relevant Minimum Wage Notification, to have been taken as Rs.10,561/- per Even under the conventional heads, sufficient amount Learned counsel for respondent No.3/Insurance Company controverts the submissions made on behalf of the appellants and submits that at the relevant time, even as per the Minimum Wage Notification, income of the deceased ought to have been Rs.7,852/- per , income of the deceased has already been assessed on the per month. It is submitted that the impugned Award suffers from no error and prays for dismissal of the appeal. 7 also proved the Jamabandi (Ex.CW5/C) of the land owned by the deceased. claimants had also produced receipts (Ex.C36) regarding supply of milk bmitted that in face of this voluminous evidence, per It is further submitted that as per judgment of this Court Others” Law it is held that even if income is to be determined Notification, then income of agriculturists d. at as per the relevant Minimum Wage Notification, per Even under the conventional heads, sufficient amount Learned counsel for respondent No.3/Insurance Company controverts the submissions made on behalf of the appellants and submits that at the relevant time, even as per the Minimum Wage per , income of the deceased has already been assessed on the per month. It is submitted that the impugned SUNENA 2025.05.09 10:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 7. 8. the case file in great detail. behalf of the appellants. 9. heavily relied upon the Singh. However, the said witnesses are admittedly the real brothers of the deceased. As such, and Ex.CW5/B brother. It is witnesses had stated that they had leased out their land to the deceased at least 3 years prior to his death. However, the Ex.CW5/B) are dated 06.07.2 19.07.2018. There is no explanation given by the said witnesses as to why this was so. Even the Income Certificate (Ex.C1) purportedly issued by the Tehsildar showing income of the deceased to be Rs.4,85,000/ from agriculture was issued on 05.07.2018 which is preceding the death of the deceased. Even the receipts regarding sale of vegetables Baljinder Singh. Furthermore, it is not disputed that the land as also the dairy farm left by the deceased have been inherited by the claimants. In fact, on the basis of the evidence on record, there is a positive f No other argument is made on behalf of the I have heard learned counsel for the the case file in great detail. I find no merit in the submissions advanced on behalf of the appellants. To prove income of the deceased, the appellants have heavily relied upon the evidence of CW4 Ranjit Singh and CW5 Amarjit . However, the said witnesses are admittedly the real brothers of the deceased. As such, a shadow of doubt is cast on and Ex.CW5/B allegedly executed by them in favour of the is further relevant to note that in their deposition, the said witnesses had stated that they had leased out their land to the deceased at least 3 years prior to his death. However, the ) are dated 06.07.2018 i.e. shortly before the accident dated 19.07.2018. There is no explanation given by the said witnesses as to why this was so. Even the Income Certificate (Ex.C1) purportedly issued by the Tehsildar showing income of the deceased to be Rs.4,85,000/ from agriculture was issued on 05.07.2018 which is the death of the deceased. Even the receipts regarding sale of vegetables were issued after the death of deceased Baljinder Singh. Furthermore, it is not disputed that the land as also the dairy farm left by the deceased have been inherited by the claimants. In fact, on the basis of the evidence on record, there is a positive f No other argument is made on behalf of the parties. learned counsel for the parties and perused I find no merit in the submissions advanced on To prove income of the deceased, the appellants have evidence of CW4 Ranjit Singh and CW5 Amarjit . However, the said witnesses are admittedly the real brothers of the is cast on the Lease Deeds Ex.CW4/B allegedly executed by them in favour of their deceased relevant to note that in their deposition, the said witnesses had stated that they had leased out their land to the deceased at least 3 years prior to his death. However, the Lease Deeds (Ex.CW4/B and 018 i.e. shortly before the accident dated 19.07.2018. There is no explanation given by the said witnesses as to why this was so. Even the Income Certificate (Ex.C1) purportedly issued by the Tehsildar showing income of the deceased to be Rs.4,85,000/- per annum from agriculture was issued on 05.07.2018 which is also immediately the death of the deceased. Even the receipts (Ex.C2 to Ex.C-32) were issued after the death of deceased Baljinder Singh. Furthermore, it is not disputed that the land as also the dairy farm left by the deceased have been inherited by the claimants. In fact, on the basis of the evidence on record, there is a positive finding of the 7 d I find no merit in the submissions advanced on To prove income of the deceased, the appellants have evidence of CW4 Ranjit Singh and CW5 Amarjit . However, the said witnesses are admittedly the real brothers of the Lease Deeds Ex.CW4/B ased relevant to note that in their deposition, the said witnesses had stated that they had leased out their land to the deceased at (Ex.CW4/B and 018 i.e. shortly before the accident dated 19.07.2018. There is no explanation given by the said witnesses as to why this was so. Even the Income Certificate (Ex.C1) purportedly issued by the annum immediately 32) were issued after the death of deceased Baljinder Singh. Furthermore, it is not disputed that the land as also the dairy farm left by the deceased have been inherited by the claimants. In inding of the SUNENA 2025.05.09 10:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document learned Tribunal that already cultivating the land after the death of Baljinder Singh. the argument of the learned have been assessed rejected as there is no loss of income supervision for work provided by the deceased Accordingly, the learned Tribunal had assessed income of the Rs.8,800/- per month. In view of the facts as noticed above, I find no error in the same. 10. determined to be 53 years on the basis of his Aadhaar Card, as per which date of birth of the deceased was 25.04.1965. As such, as per judgment of Constitution Bench judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court Insurance Company Ltd. VS. Pranay Sethi & Others” Law Finder Doc ID # 918174, multiplier of 11 ought to have been applied; whereas the learned Tribunal has already been a as per law. It is not disputed that the claimants No.2 and 3 being the 25 year-old working were not proved to be dependent Accordingly, deduction of 1/3 learned Tribunal that the 25-year-old son of the deceased/claimant No.2 already cultivating the land after the death of Baljinder Singh. argument of the learned counsel that income of the deceased ought to have been assessed at least as that of a highly skilled worker, is liable to be rejected as there is no loss of income to the claimants. supervision for work provided by the deceased Accordingly, the learned Tribunal had assessed income of the per month. In view of the facts as noticed above, I find no error The record further reveals that age of the deceased was determined to be 53 years on the basis of his Aadhaar Card, as per which date of birth of the deceased was 25.04.1965. As such, as per judgment of Constitution Bench judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court Insurance Company Ltd. VS. Pranay Sethi & Others” Law Finder Doc ID # multiplier of 11 ought to have been applied; whereas the learned Tribunal has incorrectly applied multiplier of 12 already been awarded compensation in excess of what is payable to It is not disputed that the claimants No.2 and 3 being the 25 working son and 27-year-old married not proved to be dependent on the income of the deceased. cordingly, deduction of 1/3rd towards personal expenses was correctly old son of the deceased/claimant No.2 is already cultivating the land after the death of Baljinder Singh. Moreover, that income of the deceased ought to as that of a highly skilled worker, is liable to be to the claimants. Only loss of supervision for work provided by the deceased was to be awarded. Accordingly, the learned Tribunal had assessed income of the deceased as per month. In view of the facts as noticed above, I find no error The record further reveals that age of the deceased was determined to be 53 years on the basis of his Aadhaar Card, as per which date of birth of the deceased was 25.04.1965. As such, as per judgment of Constitution Bench judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in “National Insurance Company Ltd. VS. Pranay Sethi & Others” Law Finder Doc ID # multiplier of 11 ought to have been applied; whereas the learned applied multiplier of 12. Thus, the claimants have pensation in excess of what is payable to them It is not disputed that the claimants No.2 and 3 being the 25- married daughter of the deceased on the income of the deceased. towards personal expenses was correctly 7 is Moreover, that income of the deceased ought to as that of a highly skilled worker, is liable to be nly loss of . deceased as per month. In view of the facts as noticed above, I find no error The record further reveals that age of the deceased was determined to be 53 years on the basis of his Aadhaar Card, as per which date of birth of the deceased was 25.04.1965. As such, as per judgment of “National Insurance Company Ltd. VS. Pranay Sethi & Others” Law Finder Doc ID # multiplier of 11 ought to have been applied; whereas the learned claimants have them - daughter of the deceased on the income of the deceased. towards personal expenses was correctly SUNENA 2025.05.09 10:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document made by the learned Tribunal. In this manner, dependency was calculated by the learned Tribunal as Rs.8,44,800/ 11. appellants that sufficient amount has not been granted under the conventional heads. The said argument on behalf of the appellants is also factually incorrect as the impugned Award reveals that learned Tribunal has awarded Rs.15,000/ Rs.15,000/- No.1/widow total compensation of Rs.9,14,800/ 12. 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. No doubt Chapter legislation yet, as cautioned by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the same cannot be allowed to be treated as a Supreme Court in ‘ Law Finder Doc ID # 64043 Mahadev Shetty’, (2003) 7 SCC 197, compensation s made by the learned Tribunal. In this manner, dependency was calculated by the learned Tribunal as Rs.8,44,800/- (Rs.8800/ It has been contended by learned appellants that sufficient amount has not been granted under the conventional heads. The said argument on behalf of the appellants is also factually incorrect as the impugned Award reveals that learned Tribunal has awarded Rs.15,000/- towards loss of love & affection and loss of estate; towards funeral expenses; No.1/widow of the deceased towards loss of consortium. total compensation of Rs.9,14,800/- (Rs.8,44,800/ 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. No doubt Chapter 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 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 made by the learned Tribunal. In this manner, dependency was calculated (Rs.8800/- x 2/3 x 12 x 12). It has been contended by learned counsel for the appellants that sufficient amount has not been granted under the conventional heads. The said argument on behalf of the appellants is also factually incorrect as the impugned Award reveals that learned Tribunal has ds loss of love & affection and loss of estate; and Rs.40,000/- to claimant of the deceased towards loss of consortium. Thus, granting Rs.8,44,800/- + Rs.70,000/-). 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. No doubt Chapter-12 of the Act is a beneficial legislation yet, as cautioned by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the same windfall or a source of profit. Hon’ble State of Haryana & Another Vs. Jasbir Kaur & Others’ ‘Divisional Controller K.S.R.T.C. Vs. has held that the amount of hould be just and reasonable, it should neither be a 7 made by the learned Tribunal. In this manner, dependency was calculated counsel for the appellants that sufficient amount has not been granted under the conventional heads. The said argument on behalf of the appellants is also factually incorrect as the impugned Award reveals that learned Tribunal has ds loss of love & affection and loss of estate; to claimant Thus, granting SUNENA 2025.05.09 10:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 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 “General Manager, 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. 13. 14. 07.05.2025 Sunena Whether speaking/reasoned: Whether reportable: 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 more than “General Manager, KSRTC Vs. Susamma Thomas & Others” 1994 Volume 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 above, present appeal is Pending application(s) if any also stand(s) disposed of. Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether reportable: Yes/No 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, more than ‘just’. In the case of KSRTC Vs. Susamma Thomas & Others” 1994 Volume- the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that misplaced sympathy, generosity and benevolence cannot be the guiding factor for determining f the above, present appeal is dismissed. Pending application(s) if any also stand(s) disposed of. (Nidhi Gupta) Judge 7 SUNENA 2025.05.09 10:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document