IN THE HI 254 Smt. Meena R Rajinder Kuma CORAM: Present:- NIDHI GUPTA, enhancement Accident Claim Tribunal”) vide filed under S (hereinafter re 1 married and was 20-21 yea 2. the basis of pl deceased-Sura motor vehicul and negligent (hereinafter r respondent N E HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HA na Rani & Others Vs. umar & Others HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE NID Mr.Nonish Kumar, Advocat for the appellants. *** PTA, J. Present appeal has been fi ent of compensation of Rs.17,2 Claims Tribunal, Karnal (hereinafter vide Award dated 01.03.2019 pass er Sections 166 and 140 of the er referred to as “the Act”). The 6 and 3 unmarried sisters of the de years at the time of accident. Brief facts of the case are of pleadings and evidence adduced Suraj @ Monu had died due to the icular accident that took place on gent driving of motorcycle bearing er referred to as “the offending t No.1, owned by respondent No.2 D HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO-5911-2019 (O&M) Date of decision: 15.01.2025 ...Appellant(s) ...Respondent(s) NIDHI GUPTA ocate en filed by the claimants seeking 17,27,566/- granted by Motor fter referred to as “the learned passed in MACP No.138 of 2017 the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 claimants are the parents and e deceased-Suraj @ Monu who are that the learned Tribunal on ced before it concluded that the the injuries suffered by him in a on 01.08.2017 due to the rash ring registration No.HR-91-3410 ding vehicle’) being driven by No.2 and insured by respondent 6 SUNENA 2025.01.21 18:00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document No.3. Learned interest @ 9 realisation. 3. of compensat working as a However, inco month as un submitted tha the parents o Rs.40,000/- towards conso account of pa the deceased Therefore, the It is accordingl 4. appellants. 5. perused the ca 6. accident, it wa suffered by h rned Tribunal awarded the compen 9% per annum from the date Learned counsel for the a nsation on the ground that prior to s a skilled labourer and was ear income of the deceased has been a unskilled labourer which is on that only meagre amount of Rs.4 ts of the deceased under the head each ought to have been awa onsortium i.e. Rs.2,40,000/-. Even n f pain and suffering or loss of love sed is neither running any busin , the deduction of income should ha ingly prayed that the impugned com No other argument is I have heard learned cou e case file in great detail. On the basis of testimony it was concluded that the deceased by him in the motor vehicular ac pensation as above along with date of filing the petition till he appellants seeks enhancement r to his death, the deceased was earning Rs.20,000/- per month. en assessed as only Rs.8,222/- per on the lower side. It is further Rs.40,000/- has been awarded to head of filial consortium whereas awarded to all the 6 claimants en nothing has been awarded on love and affection. Even father of usiness nor earning handsomely. ld have been 1/4th instead of 1/3rd. compensation be enhanced. is raised on behalf of the counsel for the appellants and ony of PW2/eyewitness to the sed had died due to the injuries r accident that took place on 6 nt as th. er er to as nts on of ly. . SUNENA 2025.01.21 18:00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 01.08.2017 du by responden the learned Tr only Rs.8,222/ and earning R found that deceased/claim to prove that Tribunal had t basis of notific at the relevan as that of an deceased was (Ex.P3). Accor learned Tribu which is in con “Sarla Verma Finder Doc ID the appellant considering th admittedly, th deduction of Tribunal has m 7 due to the rash and negligent dri dent no.1. It has been argued on b d Tribunal has wrongly assessed th 222/- per month; whereas the dece ng Rs.20,000/- per month. Howeve at except for the bald state claimant/appellant No.2/PW1, the that the deceased was skilled lab ad taken the deceased to be an un otification of Minimum Wages preva vant time/01.08.2017, income of th f an unskilled labourer as Rs.8,22 was determined to be 20-21 years ccordingly, multiplier of 18 has b ribunal further granted future pro conformity with the judgment of th ma & Others Vs. Delhi Transport C c ID # 188882. Further, the contentio llants that deduction of 1/4th g the fact that there were 6 claiman y, the deceased was a bachelor at th of 50% ought to have been m as made a deduction of 1/3rd of t t driving of the offending vehicle on behalf of the appellants that d the income of the deceased as deceased was a skilled labourer wever, the learned Tribunal has statement of father of the there is no evidence on record labourer. As such the learned n unskilled labourer and on the revailing in the State of Haryana of the deceased was determined 8,222/- per month. Age of the ears as per Post-Mortem Report as been correctly applied. The prospects at the rate of 40% of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in rt Corporation & Another” Law ention of the learned counsel for ought to have been made imants, is liable to be rejected as at the time of accident. As such, made. However, the learned of the income of the deceased 6 SUNENA 2025.01.21 18:00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document towards his pe deceased had sisters would b grounds of eq Tribunal furth towards fune consortium. 7. facts and circu (SC) SLP No.1 Vinish Jain & about 4 to 5 p such variation 8. Court has bee Director, Divis Doc Id # 1885 below:- “18. It It is mo knockin accoun Tribuna discret there c is personal and living expenses keep had 3 unmarried sisters.Strictly uld be dependent upon their father f equity and fair play, a deduction urther awarded Rs.15,000/- toward funeral expenses and Rs.40,000 I find the said compensat circumstances of the present case. T No.13931 of 2017 titled as “New n & Others”, has held that where 5 per cent only, it does not warran tion in compensation is within perm This above-said judgmen been followed by the Kerala Hig Divisional Controller Versus Alikut 1885188. Relevant para 18 of the s 8. It is to be borne in mind, the accid is more than 2 ½ years since the res ocking at the doors of the Courts count of the death of the bread-win ibunal is permitted to do some gues scretion to fix the reasonable and ju ere cannot be any straitjacket formu keeping in mind the fact that the tly speaking, the 3 unmarried ther/claimant No.2. However, on tion of 1/3rd was made. Learned ards loss of estate; Rs.15,000/- ,000/- towards loss of filial nsation to be just and fair in the se. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in ew India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. ere difference in compensation is rrant interference by this Court as, ermissible limits. ment of the Hon’ble Supreme High Court in “The Managing likutty and Others” Law Finder he said judgment is reproduced accident occurred on 23,2,2019. e respondents 1 to 4 have been urts seeking compensation on winner. It is trite law that the guess work and also exercise its nd just compensation, for which formula based on mathematical 6 he in Vs. is as, SUNENA 2025.01.21 18:00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document precisio Others that if the cou 9. Court in “Re Others”, Law under:- “16. T awardi awarde Rs.10,0 17. In 619], t Court c 10. counsel for th 11. case is made find the com the facts and is a benefici Court, the sa source of pro near and dea ecision. In New India Assurance Co thers [(2018) 3 SCC 619], the Hon'b at if the fixation of compensation i e courts should normally not interfer Above said view has been r Reliance General Insurance Com Law Finder Doc ID # 1921609, para 6. The other area of dispute is arding compensation under the arded Rs.75,000/- towards loss of .10,000/- awarded towards pain and . In New India Assurance Co., Ltd v 9], the Hon'ble Supreme Court has urt can permit variation of plus or m No case law to the contrar or the appellants. Accordingly, in view of the ade out that merits interference w compensation awarded to the app and circumstances of the case. No eficial legislation yet, as cautione e same cannot be allowed to be f profit. Moreover, compensation a dear loved one cannot be made a e Company Vs. Vinish Jain and on'ble Supreme Court has held ion is within permissible limits, erfere with such awards”. en reiterated by the Kerala High Company Limited Vs. Adila and paras 16 and 17 of which read as is that the Tribunal after the conventional heads has ss of love and affection and n and sufferings. Ltd v. Vineesh.J[2018 (3) SCC t has held that the Appellate or minus 4 to 5 percent.” ntrary has been cited by learned f the discussion above, I find no ce with the impugned Award. I appellants to be just and fair in No doubt Chapter-12 of the Act ioned by the Hon’ble Supreme be treated as a windfall or a on awarded upon the death of a de a market negotiation, where 6 SUNENA 2025.01.21 18:00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document every penny ‘State of Ha ‘Divisional Co has held th reasonable, i the same tim determined accorded is ‘j Tribunal has with the law does not wa Susamma Th has held tha be the guidin 12. 13. 13. 15.01.2025 Sunena Whether spea Whether repo nny has to be calculated and drawn f Haryana Vs. Jasbir Kaur’ Law F al Controller K.S.R.T.C. Vs. Mahade that the amount of compens le, it should neither be a bonanza e time it should not be a pittanc ed in the facts of a given case is ‘just’. In my considered view, in t has awarded a very ‘just’ compensa law laid down by the Hon’ble Sup warrant the interference of this C a Thomas 1994 Volume-II SCC 176, that misplaced sympathy, generos iding factor for determining the com In view of the above, the p Pending application(s) if an peaking/reasoned: Yes/No eportable: Yes/No rawn. Hon’ble Supreme Court in w Finder Doc ID # 64043 and adev Shetty’, (2003) 7 SCC 197, ensation should be just and nza nor a source of profit but at tance. Thus, all that has to be ase is, that the compensation , in the present case, the learned ensation, which is in accordance Supreme Court and therefore, his Court. In case of KSRTC Vs. 176, the Hon’ble Supreme Court erosity and benevolence cannot compensation. he present appeal is dismissed. if any also stand(s) disposed of. (Nidhi Gupta) Judge 6 SUNENA 2025.01.21 18:00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document