IN THE HI 245 Pinkesh & Oth Vikram & Oth CORAM: Present:- NIDHI GUPTA, enhancement Accident Claim in MACT Case Vehicles Act, 1 are the wife a stated to have 2. the basis of pl concluded tha injuries suffer 09.09.2016 registration N E HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HA Others Vs. Others HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE NID Ms. Komal Rana, Advocate Mr. Abhimanyu Singh, Advo for the appellants. Mr. Neeraj Khanna, Advoca for respondent No.3/Insura *** PTA, J. Present appeal has been ent of compensation of Rs.9,52,20 laims Tribunal Gurugram vide Awa ase No.11 of 03.02.2017 filed und ct, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as ife and children of the deceased ave been about 55 years of age at t Brief facts of the case are f pleadings and oral & documentar that the deceased-Birender @ Vi ffered by him in a motor vehicular due to the rash and negligen n No.HR-55T-5527 (hereinafter re D HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO-4700-2019 (O&M) Date of decision: 15.02.2025 ...Appellant(s) ...Respondent(s) NIDHI GUPTA cate for Advocate vocate surance Company. en filed by the claimants seeking 2,200/- awarded by the Motor Award dated 04.05.2019 passed under Section 166 of the Motor o as “the Act”). The 5 claimants ed-Birender @ Virender who is at the time of accident. are that the learned Tribunal on ntary evidence adduced before it Virender had died due to the ular accident that took place on ligent driving of truck bearing r referred to as “the offending 5 SUNENA 2025.02.17 17:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document vehicle”) by respondent N awarded com from the date 3. of compensati been taken on that the claim deceased was work and by produced whi land. However learned Tribu prayed that th 4. appellants. 5. perused the ca 6. claimants/app daughters of t at the time of deceased. The by respondent No.1. The offend t No.2 and insured by respond compensation as above along with ate of filing the petition till realisati Learned counsel for the ap sation primarily on the ground that n on the lower side as only Rs.8100 laimants/appellants had led sufficien was earning about Rs.6 lakh per a by selling and purchasing animal which clearly reflects that the dece ever, these facts and evidence have ribunal while passing the impugn t the impugned Award be modified No other argument is I have heard learned cou e case file in great detail. It is first and foremos /appellants No.1 to 4 herein, are th of the deceased being aged 35, 31, e of filing the claim petition. Claima There is nothing on record to indi ending vehicle was owned by ondent No.3. Learned Tribunal with interest @ 7% per annum isation. e appellants seeks enhancement that income of the deceased has 100/- per month. It is submitted icient evidence to prove that the er annum by doing agricultural imals. Even the Jamabandi was deceased was having 14 acres of have not been considered by the ugned Award. It is accordingly ified. is made on behalf of the counsel for the appellants and most to be noted that the e the 2 major sons and 2 major , 31, 28 and 26 years respectively aimant No.5 is the widow of the indicate that the said claimants 5 SUNENA 2025.02.17 17:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document no.1 to 4 were the contrary, previously sho with the claim income. As compensation dependence daughters of t 7. appellants tha agriculture wo deceased was (Ex.P6). Howe produced. Mo the claimants, even no proof of purchasing record. Howev assessed incom in the same. 8. the deceased, was 59 years were financially dependent upon th ary, it is not denied that the 14 shown in ownership of the decease claimants in regard to which the As such, the claimants No.1 to tion as they have not been ab ce upon the deceased; besides of the deceased. It has been contended b that the deceased was earning Rs e work and by selling and purcha was owner of 14 acres of land owever, besides, the Jamabandi, no Moreover, as already noted above nts, thus resulting in no loss of in roof of taking land on lease was plac sing and selling of animals appear owever, keeping in mind the above ncome of the deceased as Rs.8100 e. Further, as per appellant N sed, he had stated in his evidence ears old at the time of accident. Page 3 of 5 n the deceased at that time. On 14 acres of agricultural land eased as per Jamabandi Ex.P6 is they have suffered no loss of to 4 were not entitled to able to prove their financial es being the major sons and ed by learned counsel for the g Rs.6 lakh per annum by doing rchasing animals; and that the nd as evident from Jamabandi , no proof of income has been ove, the land has evolved upon f income. It is to be noted that placed on record. Even no proof pears to have been brought on bove facts, the learned Tribunal 100/- per month. I find no error nt No.1 – the 35-year-old son of ence as PW1 that the deceased ent. However, as per the Post- 5 SUNENA 2025.02.17 17:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Mortem Repo years. As such years and ther Thus, monthly 9. 1/4th towards claimants No. ought to have change is ma deceased wa Rs.80,196/- pe 10. correctly appl were further consortium; compensation 11. compensation has been sho compensation discussion abo with the imp appellants to eport (Ex.P4), the age of the dece uch, the learned Tribunal took the a therefore, correctly added future p thly income was Rs.8,910/- (Rs.8,10 Although the learned Tribu rds personal expenses, however as No.1 to 4 were not dependent o ave been half or 1/3rd. However, as made in the deduction of 1/4th was Rs.8,910/- - Rs.2,227/- = per year. As deceased was 55 years applied. Thus, Rs.80,196/- x 11 = R her granted Rs.15,000/- for funera and Rs.15,000/- for loss of tion of Rs.9,52,200/- has been grant From the above facts, it is tion has been awarded to the app shown to this Court that would tion granted to the appellants. above, I find no case is made ou impugned Award. I find the com to be just and fair in the facts and eceased was recorded to be 55 the age of the deceased to be 55 re prospects at the rate of 10%. 8,100/- + Rs.810/- = Rs.8,910/-). ribunal has made a deduction of r as per law, keeping in view that nt on the deceased, deduction r, as this is claimants’ appeal, no th.Thus, annual income of the = Rs.6,683/- per month or ears of age, multiplier of 11 was = Rs.8,82,156/-. The claimants neral expenses; Rs.40,000/- for of estate. Accordingly, total ranted. it is clear that a very just and fair appellants. Nothing whatsoever uld merit enhancement of the . Accordingly, in view of the e out which merits interference compensation awarded to the and circumstances of the case. 5 SUNENA 2025.02.17 17:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document No doubt Chap by the Hon’ble as a windfall Haryana & An and ‘Divisiona 197, has held reasonable, it the same tim determined in accorded is ‘ju Tribunal has a with the law la not warrant t Susamma Tho has held that m the guiding fac 12. this Court to c the above disc 13. 15.02.2025 Sunena Whether spea Whether repo Chapter-12 of the Act is a beneficial n’ble Supreme Court, the same cann fall or a source of profit. Hon’ble Another Vs. Jasbir Kaur& Others ional Controller K.S.R.T.C. Vs. Mah held that the amount of compen e, it should neither be a bonanza n time it should not be a pittance d in the facts of a given case is ‘just’. In my considered view, in t as awarded a very ‘just’ compensa aw laid down by the Hon’ble Suprem nt the interference of this Court Thomas 1994 Volume-II SCC 176, hat misplaced sympathy, generosity g factor for determining the compen Ld. Counsel for the appel to controvert or dispute the above discussion, the present appeal is dis Pending application(s) if an peaking/reasoned: Yes/No eportable: Yes/No ficial legislation yet, as cautioned cannot be allowed to be treated ’ble Supreme Court in ‘State of rs’ Law Finder Doc ID # 64043 Mahadev Shetty’, (2003) 7 SCC pensation should be just and za nor a source of profit but at ance. Thus, all that has to be ase is, that the compensation in the present case, the learned ensation, which is in accordance preme Court and therefore, does ourt. In the case of KSRTC Vs. 76, the Hon’ble Supreme Court sity and benevolence cannot be pensation. ppellants has shown nothing to ove facts and findings. In view of dismissed. if any also stand(s) disposed of. (Nidhi Gupta) Judge 5 SUNENA 2025.02.17 17:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document