FAO-4725 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 232-A Darshana Kaur and Paramjit Singh and others CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA Present: - NIDHI GUPTA, J. CM-15895 Limitation Act, 1963 is for condonation of delay of accompanying appeal. of delay of appellants condonation of the appeal. FAO-4725 1. enhancement of compensation of 4725-2019 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Kaur and another Versus Paramjit Singh and others CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA Mr. KP Singh, Advocate for the appellants. NIDHI GUPTA, J. 895-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 327 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 inordinate and extraordinary appeal. The present application, accordingly, stands 725-2019 (O&M) The present appeal has been enhancement of compensation of ₹12,39,660/ IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO-4725-2019 (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 327 days in filing the The only ground for cited in the application for condonation ing the accompanying appeal is that ‘the were not aware about the limitation’. The said reason does not constitute sufficient ground for inordinate and extraordinary delay of 320 days in filing application, accordingly, stands dismissed. has been filed by the claimants seeking ₹12,39,660/– awarded by the learned 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 seeking by the learned RISHU KATARIA 2025.05.07 14:16 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. FAO-4725 Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, SAS Nagar Mohali (hereinafter referred to as ‘the learned Tribunal’) claim petition bearing MACT Case No. appellant-claimants under Section 166 of The 02 claimants are the who was stated to be 2 2. basis of pleadings and evidence a deceased-Taranpreet Singh @ Monu accident that took place on of Tata Truck bearing registration referred to as ‘the offending vehicle’) by respondent No. owned by respondent No. 2 No.3-Insurance Company. above along with interest @ claim petition till actual realization. 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 deceased a Karyana shop in front portion of per month. PW-3 Surinder Singh, affidavit Ex. PW was running a Karyana shop in front portion of his house and was earning 4725-2019 (O&M) -2- Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, SAS Nagar Mohali (hereinafter referred to as ‘the learned Tribunal’) vide Award dated 15.05.2018 passed in claim petition bearing MACT Case No. 216 claimants under Section 166 of claimants are the parents of deceased who was 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 Taranpreet Singh @ Monu, had died accident that took place on 03.12.2015 due to rash and negligent driving Tata Truck bearing registration No. referred to as ‘the offending vehicle’) by respondent No. owned by respondent No. 2-Vikas Kumar 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. 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-Taranpreet Singh @ Monu a Karyana shop in front portion of his house and was earning per month. The appellants have proved said income from evidence of 3 Surinder Singh, Sarpanch of village Kanspur, who tendered his affidavit Ex. PW-3/A, stating therein that after matriculation, the deceased was running a Karyana shop in front portion of his house and was earning Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, SAS Nagar Mohali (hereinafter referred e Award dated 15.05.2018 passed in the 6 dated 09.11.2016, filed by the claimants under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. deceased-Taranpreet Singh @ Monu years old at the time of accident. Brief facts of the case are that the learned Tribunal on the dduced before it concluded that , had died in a motor vehicular due to rash and negligent driving No. HR-37-D-0472 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the offending vehicle’) by respondent No.1-Paramjit Singh; Vikas Kumar; and insured by respondent Learned Tribunal awarded compensation as num from the date of filing the 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. Taranpreet Singh @ Monu, was running his house and was earning ₹20,000/- proved said income from evidence of Sarpanch of village Kanspur, who tendered his , stating therein that after matriculation, the deceased was running a Karyana shop in front portion of his house and was earning Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, SAS Nagar Mohali (hereinafter referred the filed by the . Brief facts of the case are that the learned Tribunal on the dduced before it concluded that in a motor vehicular due to rash and negligent driving (hereinafter ; respondent Learned Tribunal awarded compensation as num from the date of filing the Learned counsel for the appellants seeks enhancement of compensation only on the ground that income of the deceased has been per month. running proved said income from evidence of Sarpanch of village Kanspur, who tendered his , stating therein that after matriculation, the deceased was running a Karyana shop in front portion of his house and was earning RISHU KATARIA 2025.05.07 14:16 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. FAO-4725 ₹20,000/- per month submitted that nothing has been awarded by the learned Tribunal towards consortium 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 -Taranpreet Singh @ Monu which he 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. on the basis of 40% towards future prospects ha Tribunal in conformity with the law as laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi others, (2017) 16 SCC 680 calculated the monthly income of the deceased as 4725-2019 (O&M) -3- per month. Thus, income of deceased was proved. 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 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 Taranpreet Singh @ Monu was was earning ₹20,000/- per month relied upon evidence of PW-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 As such, I find that the learned Tribunal h notional income of the deceased as ₹8,000/ Further, age of the deceased was determined on the basis of his post-mortem report (Ex. P 40% towards future prospects has been correctly in conformity with the law as laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi others, (2017) 16 SCC 680.Thus, the learned Tribunal has rightly calculated the monthly income of the deceased as Thus, income of deceased was proved. It is also submitted that nothing has been awarded by the learned Tribunal towards to the claimants. It is accordingly, prayed that the impugned Award be modified and the amount of compensation so awarded by the o other argument is raised on behalf of the appellants. I have heard learned counsel for the appellants and perused aforesaid submissions made on behalf learned counsel for the appellants that was running a Karyana shop from per month. In this regard, 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 I find that the learned Tribunal has rightly assessed the 8,000/- per month. age of the deceased was determined to be 20 years (Ex. P-11). As such, addition of correctly made by the learned in conformity with the law as laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi and Thus, the learned Tribunal has rightly calculated the monthly income of the deceased as ₹11,200/- month. As the also submitted that nothing has been awarded by the learned Tribunal towards to the claimants. It is accordingly, prayed that the impugned Award be modified and the amount of compensation so awarded by the made on behalf learned counsel for the appellants that from 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 per as rightly assessed the 20 years As such, addition of by the learned in conformity with the law as laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme and Thus, the learned Tribunal has rightly month. As the RISHU KATARIA 2025.05.07 14:16 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. FAO-4725 deceased was Bachelor at the time of accident, t further correctly Therefore, dependency @ (5600 x 12). A multiplier of 18 has correctly been applied as Hon’ble Supreme Court in Corporation, payable to the claimants worked to be learned Tribunal has further granted an amount of of estate and therefore, payable to the claimants comes to ₹15,000/- + 8. of consortium being mother who is the father of the deceased. 9. Court in (SC 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 compensation is within permissible limits. 10. been followed by the Kerala High Court in 4725-2019 (O&M) -4- deceased was Bachelor at the time of accident, t further correctly made a deduction of 50% the learned Tribunal had rightly calculated the monthly dependency @ ₹5600/- month; and annual dependency @ (5600 x 12). As the deceased was 20 years of age at the time of accident, multiplier of 18 has correctly been applied as Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sarla Verma vs. Delhi Transport Corporation, Law Finder Doc Id # 188882 payable to the claimants worked to be ₹ learned Tribunal has further granted an amount of of estate and₹15,000/- towards funeral expenses. therefore, payable to the claimants comes to +₹15,000/-). No doubt, nothing has been awarded to the of consortium. However, it is to be seen that claimant being mother 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 Ltd. 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 compensation is within permissible limits. This above-said judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court has been followed by the Kerala High Court in deceased was Bachelor at the time of accident, the learned Tribunal has 50% towards personal expenses. the learned Tribunal had rightly calculated the monthly month; and annual dependency @ ₹67,200/- years of age at the time of accident, multiplier of 18 has correctly been applied as per law laid down by the Sarla Verma vs. Delhi Transport 188882; and the compensation ₹12,09,600/- (67,200 x 18).The learned Tribunal has further granted an amount of ₹15,000/- towards loss towards 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 claimants by way . However, it is to be seen that claimant/appellant No. 1 upon claimant/appellant No. 2, 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 said judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court has been followed by the Kerala High Court in The Managing Director, he learned Tribunal has . the learned Tribunal had rightly calculated the monthly years of age at the time of accident, aid down by the Sarla Verma vs. Delhi Transport and the compensation The towards loss The total compensation, + by way No. 1 upon claimant/appellant No. 2, 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 variation in said judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court has The Managing Director, RISHU KATARIA 2025.05.07 14:16 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. FAO-4725 Divisional Controller Versus Alikutty and Others 1885188. Relevant para 18 of the said judgment is reproduced below: 11. Court in Reliance General Insurance Company Limited Others, Law Finder Doc ID as under:- 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 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 cannot be allowed to be treated as a 4725-2019 (O&M) -5- Divisional Controller Versus Alikutty and Others . 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 the bread-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 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 Above said view has been reiterated by the Kerala High Reliance General Insurance Company Limited Others, Law Finder Doc ID # 1921609, paras “16. The other area of dispute i awarding compensation under the conventional heads 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 permit variation of plus or 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 has been shown to this Court that would merit enhancement of the compensation granted to the appellants. Accordingly, I find no case is made out which merits interference with the impugned Award. No doubt 12 of 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 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 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 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 appellants. Nothing whatsoever has been shown to this Court that would merit enhancement of the Accordingly, I find no case is made out which merits interference with the impugned Award. No doubt 12 of 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 Law Finder Doc Id # RISHU KATARIA 2025.05.07 14:16 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. FAO-4725 windfall o Haryana & 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 considered vie 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, 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 4725-2019 (O&M) -6- windfall or a source of profit. Hon’ble Supreme Court in Haryana & Another Vs. Jasbir Kaur & Others 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 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 vie 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 General 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 that merits interference with the impugned Award. . Pending application(s) if any also stand(s) disposed of. .2025 Whether speaking/reasoned Whether Reportable r a source of profit. Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Haryana & Another Vs. Jasbir Kaur & Others, Law Finder Doc ID K.S.R.T.C. Vs. Mahadev Shetty, 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 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 KSRTC Vs. Susamma Thomas & Others, 1994 the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that misplaced sympathy, generosity and benevolence cannot be the guiding the discussion 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 case is made out appeal is RISHU KATARIA 2025.05.07 14:16 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment.