IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 237 Ashok & Another Ved Parkash CORAM: Present:- NIDHI GUPTA, J. enhancement of compensation of Rs. Accident Claims Tribunal, vide Award dated 20.12.2018 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”). deceased Dharmender 2. the basis of pleading and oral & documentary evidence adduced before it concluded that deceased Dharmender had died due to the injuries suffered by him in a motor vehicular accident that took place on 04.12.2018 the rash and negligent driving of Bolero vehicle bearing registration No.HR IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Ashok & Another Vs. & Others HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA Mr. Bhim Singh, Advocate Mr. Rajiv Kumar Saini, Advocate for the appellants. *** NIDHI GUPTA, J. Present appeal has been filed by the claimant enhancement of compensation of Rs.14,10,320 Accident Claims Tribunal, Karnal (hereinafter referred to as “the Tribunal”), vide Award dated 10.02.2020 passed in filed under Section 166/140 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”). The Dharmender. Brief facts of the case are that the learned Tribunal on the basis of pleading and oral & documentary evidence adduced before it concluded that deceased Dharmender had died due to the injuries suffered by him in a motor vehicular accident that took place on 04.12.2018 the rash and negligent driving of Bolero vehicle bearing registration No.HR IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO-2517-2021(O&M) Date of decision: 14.05.2025 ...Appellant(s) ...Respondent(s) HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA , Advocate for Mr. Rajiv Kumar Saini, Advocate Present appeal has been filed by the claimants seeking 14,10,320/- awarded by the Motor (hereinafter referred to as “the Tribunal”), passed in MACT Case No.110 dated /140 of the Motor Vehicles Act The 2 claimants are the parents of Brief facts of the case are that the learned Tribunal on the basis of pleading and oral & documentary evidence adduced before it concluded that deceased Dharmender had died due to the injuries suffered by him in a motor vehicular accident that took place on 04.12.2018 due to the rash and negligent driving of Bolero vehicle bearing registration No.HR- 4 seeking awarded by the Motor (hereinafter referred to as “the Tribunal”), MACT Case No.110 dated of the Motor Vehicles Act of Brief facts of the case are that the learned Tribunal on the basis of pleading and oral & documentary evidence adduced before it concluded that deceased Dharmender had died due to the injuries suffered due to - SUNENA 2025.05.16 17:41 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 45B-6215 (hereinafter referred t No.1. The offending vehicle was owned by respondent No.2 and insured by respondent No.3 with interest @ realisation. Respondents were held jointly and severally liable to pay the amount of compensation. 3. of compensation on the ground that income of the taken on the lower side as only Rs.8,600/ the deceased was a skilled worker having a Kiryana shop and earning Rs.25,000/- per month. The appellants have specifically adduced cogent and reliable evidence pr month, which was likely to increase with the passage of time. It is further submitted that interest has been annum, which deserves to be increased. present appeal be allowed; impugned Award be modified and amount of compensation awarded to the appellants be enhanced adequately. 4. 5. perused the case file in great detail. 6. as 18 years, on the basis of his Aadhaar Card (Ex.P7) 6215 (hereinafter referred to as “the offending vehicle”) by respondent . The offending vehicle was owned by respondent No.2 and insured by respondent No.3. Learned Tribunal awarded aforesaid compensation along with interest @ 7% per annum from the date of filing the claim petition till Respondents were held jointly and severally liable to pay the amount of compensation. Learned counsel for the appellants seeks enhancement of compensation on the ground that income of the taken on the lower side as only Rs.8,600/- per month. It is submitted that the deceased was a skilled worker having a Kiryana shop and earning per month. The appellants have specifically adduced cogent and reliable evidence proving income of the deceased as Rs.25,000/ month, which was likely to increase with the passage of time. It is further submitted that interest has been awarded at the rate of only 7% per annum, which deserves to be increased. It is therefore prayed th present appeal be allowed; impugned Award be modified and amount of compensation awarded to the appellants be enhanced adequately. No other argument is made on behalf of the I have heard learned counsel for the d the case file in great detail. At the time of accident, a as 18 years, on the basis of his Aadhaar Card (Ex.P7) o as “the offending vehicle”) by respondent . The offending vehicle was owned by respondent No.2 and insured by . Learned Tribunal awarded aforesaid compensation along from the date of filing the claim petition till Respondents were held jointly and severally liable to pay the Learned counsel for the appellants seeks enhancement of compensation on the ground that income of the deceased has been per month. It is submitted that the deceased was a skilled worker having a Kiryana shop and earning per month. The appellants have specifically adduced cogent oving income of the deceased as Rs.25,000/- per month, which was likely to increase with the passage of time. It is further awarded at the rate of only 7% per It is therefore prayed that the present appeal be allowed; impugned Award be modified and amount of compensation awarded to the appellants be enhanced adequately. No other argument is made on behalf of the appellants. learned counsel for the appellants and At the time of accident, age of the deceased was taken as 18 years, on the basis of his Aadhaar Card (Ex.P7). It was pleaded by the 4 o as “the offending vehicle”) by respondent . The offending vehicle was owned by respondent No.2 and insured by . Learned Tribunal awarded aforesaid compensation along from the date of filing the claim petition till Respondents were held jointly and severally liable to pay the Learned counsel for the appellants seeks enhancement deceased has been per month. It is submitted that the deceased was a skilled worker having a Kiryana shop and earning per month. The appellants have specifically adduced cogent per month, which was likely to increase with the passage of time. It is further awarded at the rate of only 7% per at the present appeal be allowed; impugned Award be modified and amount of and ge of the deceased was taken was pleaded by the SUNENA 2025.05.16 17:41 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document appellants that the deceased was running a Kiryana Rs.25,000/- per month. However, no evidence whatsoever was produced by the appellants to support the said contention. Accordingly, the learned Tribunal by placing reliance upon the relevant Minimum Wage Notification had assessed that admissible to an unskilled labourer. Bench judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Company Ltd. VS. Pranay Sethi & Others” Law Finder Doc ID # 918174, learned Tribunal h = Rs.12,040/ unmarried and bachelor at the time of death, deduction of 50% was correctly made towards personal expenses (Rs.72 18 years old, multiplier of 18 was correctly Rs.13,00,320/ awarded Rs. loss of estate. appellants towards loss of filial conso compensation of Rs.14,10,320/ 7. compensation has been awarded to the a has been shown to this Court that would merit enhancement of the compensation granted to the appellant appellants that the deceased was running a Kiryana per month. However, no evidence whatsoever was produced by the appellants to support the said contention. Accordingly, the learned Tribunal by placing reliance upon the relevant Minimum Wage Notification had assessed notional income of the deceased as Rs.8,600/ that admissible to an unskilled labourer. In conformity with Bench judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Company Ltd. VS. Pranay Sethi & Others” Law Finder Doc ID # 918174, arned Tribunal had awarded 40% future prospects (Rs.8,600/ = Rs.12,040/- per month and Rs.1,44,480/- unmarried and bachelor at the time of death, deduction of 50% was made towards personal expenses (Rs.72 18 years old, multiplier of 18 was correctly Rs.13,00,320/-) Further, under conventional heads awarded Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenses and Rs.15,000/ loss of estate. Another sum of Rs.40,000/ appellants towards loss of filial consortium compensation of Rs.14,10,320/-. 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. No doubt Chapter appellants that the deceased was running a Kiryana shop and earning per month. However, no evidence whatsoever was produced by the appellants to support the said contention. Accordingly, the learned Tribunal by placing reliance upon the relevant Minimum Wage Notification ncome of the deceased as Rs.8,600/- per month as In conformity with Constitution Bench judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in “National Insurance Company Ltd. VS. Pranay Sethi & Others” Law Finder Doc ID # 918174, ad awarded 40% future prospects (Rs.8,600/- + Rs.3,440/- per annum). As deceased was unmarried and bachelor at the time of death, deduction of 50% was made towards personal expenses (Rs.72,240/-). As deceased was 18 years old, multiplier of 18 was correctly applied (Rs.72,240/- x 18 = Further, under conventional heads, the learned Tribunal towards funeral expenses and Rs.15,000/- towards Another sum of Rs.40,000/- each was awarded to the rtium; thereby granting total From the above facts, it is clear that a very just and fair ppellants. Nothing whatsoever has been shown to this Court that would merit enhancement of the No doubt Chapter-12 of the Act 4 shop and earning per month. However, no evidence whatsoever was produced by the appellants to support the said contention. Accordingly, the learned Tribunal by placing reliance upon the relevant Minimum Wage Notification per month as Constitution “National Insurance Company Ltd. VS. Pranay Sethi & Others” Law Finder Doc ID # 918174, - As deceased was unmarried and bachelor at the time of death, deduction of 50% was As deceased was x 18 = , the learned Tribunal towards each was awarded to the ; thereby granting total SUNENA 2025.05.16 17:41 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document is a beneficial legislation yet, as cautioned by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the same canno profit. Hon’ble Supreme Court in ‘ Kaur & Others’ Law Finder Doc ID # 64043 K.S.R.T.C. Vs. Mahadev Shetty’, (2003) 7 SCC 197, 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. In my considered view, in the present case, the learned Tribunal has awarded a very ‘just’ law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and therefore, does not warrant the interference of this Court. In the case of KSRTC Vs. Susamma Thomas & Others” 1994 Volume Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that misplaced sympathy, generosity and benevolence cannot be the guiding factor for determining the compensation. 8. 9. 14.05.2025 Sunena Whether speaking/reasoned: Whether reportable: 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 & Another Vs. Jasbir Kaur & Others’ Law Finder Doc ID # 64043 K.S.R.T.C. Vs. Mahadev Shetty’, (2003) 7 SCC 197, 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. 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 of KSRTC Vs. Susamma Thomas & Others” 1994 Volume 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) dispo Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether reportable: Yes/No is a beneficial legislation yet, as cautioned by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, t be allowed to be treated as a windfall or a source of 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 bonanza nor a source of profit but at the same time it should not be a pittance. In my considered view, in the present case, the learned Tribunal 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” 1994 Volume-II SCC 176, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that misplaced sympathy, generosity and benevolence cannot be the guiding factor for determining the In view of the above, present appeal is dismissed. Pending application(s) if any also stand(s) disposed of. (Nidhi Gupta) Judge 4 SUNENA 2025.05.16 17:41 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document