IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 255 Ruldu Ram & Others Pala Ram & Others CORAM: Present:- NIDHI GUPTA, J. enhancement of compensation of Rs. Accident Claims Tribunal, Tribunal”), vide Award dated 05.03.2020 filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”). 48, 45 and 30 years of the deceased Jagir Kaur mother of claimants No. 2. basis of pleadings and or concluded that the suffered by her IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH & Others Vs. & Others HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA Mr. Ishan Cooner, Advocate Mr. J.S. Cooner, Advocate for the appellants. *** NIDHI GUPTA, J. Present appeal has been filed by the enhancement of compensation of Rs.4,90,000 Accident Claims Tribunal, Panchkula (hereinafter referred to as “the Tribunal”), vide Award dated 26.05.2023 passed in filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act (hereinafter as “the Act”). The 4 claimants are 48, 45 and 30 years of the deceased Jagir Kaur mother of claimants No.2 to 4). Brief facts of the case are that the ld. Tribunal on the basis of pleadings and oral & documentary evidence adduced before it concluded that the deceased Jagir Kaur her in a motor vehicular accident that took place on IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO-5896-2023(O&M) Date of decision: 01.05.2025 ...Appellant(s) ...Respondent(s) HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA , Advocate for Present appeal has been filed by the claimants seeking 4,90,000/- awarded by the Motor (hereinafter referred to as “the passed in MACP/40/2020 dated filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act (hereinafter claimants are the husband and 3 sons aged 48, 45 and 30 years of the deceased Jagir Kaur (wife of claimant No.1 and Brief facts of the case are that the ld. Tribunal on the al & documentary evidence adduced before it had died due to the injuries in a motor vehicular accident that took place on 07.02.2020 5 seeking awarded by the Motor (hereinafter referred to as “the MACP/40/2020 dated filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act (hereinafter husband and 3 sons aged (wife of claimant No.1 and Brief facts of the case are that the ld. Tribunal on the al & documentary evidence adduced before it had died due to the injuries 07.02.2020 SUNENA 2025.05.02 17:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document due to the rash and negligent driving of 12C-8713 (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 interest @ 6% per annum. 3. of compensation claiming compensation of Rs.70 lakh on account of death of Jagir Kaur aged 62 years on 07.02.2020; whereas the learned Tribunal has aw compensation of Rs.4,90,000/ submitted that the learned Tribunal has wrongly assessed income of the deceased as only Rs.5,000/ Tribunal ought to take Moreover, the learned Tribunal has awarded only Rs.40,000/ consortium; the learned Tribunal has awarded Rs.15,000/ funeral expenses; whereas Rs.16,500/ Moreover, the learned Tribunal has awarded interest the date of filing the claim petition; whereas interest @ should have been awarded from the date of accident itself. prayed that the impugned Award be modified. 4. due to the rash and negligent driving of truck (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 compensation was granted along with % per annum. Learned counsel for the appellant of compensation stating that the appellant claiming compensation of Rs.70 lakh on account of death of Jagir Kaur aged 62 years on 07.02.2020; whereas the learned Tribunal has aw compensation of Rs.4,90,000/- vide impugned Award dated 26.0 submitted that the learned Tribunal has wrongly assessed income of the deceased as only Rs.5,000/- per month, which is highly inadequate. Learned Tribunal ought to take income of the deceased on the higher side. Moreover, the learned Tribunal has awarded only Rs.40,000/ consortium; whereas Rs.44,000/- each should have been awarded. the learned Tribunal has awarded Rs.15,000/ funeral expenses; whereas Rs.16,500/- each Moreover, the learned Tribunal has awarded interest the date of filing the claim petition; whereas interest @ should have been awarded from the date of accident itself. prayed that the impugned Award be modified. No other argument is made on behalf of the truck bearing registration No.HP- (hereinafter referred to as “the offending vehicle”) by respondent No.1. The offending vehicle was owned by respondent No.2 and insured by said compensation was granted along with Learned counsel for the appellants seeks enhancement the appellants had filed claim petition claiming compensation of Rs.70 lakh on account of death of Jagir Kaur aged 62 years on 07.02.2020; whereas the learned Tribunal has awarded meagre vide impugned Award dated 26.05.2023. It is submitted that the learned Tribunal has wrongly assessed income of the per month, which is highly inadequate. Learned income of the deceased on the higher side. Moreover, the learned Tribunal has awarded only Rs.40,000/- as loss of each should have been awarded. Further, the learned Tribunal has awarded Rs.15,000/- each for loss of estate and each ought to have been awarded. Moreover, the learned Tribunal has awarded interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing the claim petition; whereas interest @ 12% per annum should have been awarded from the date of accident itself. It is accordingly prayed that the impugned Award be modified. No other argument is made on behalf of the appellants. 5 - (hereinafter referred to as “the offending vehicle”) by respondent No.1. The offending vehicle was owned by respondent No.2 and insured by said compensation was granted along with seeks enhancement had filed claim petition claiming compensation of Rs.70 lakh on account of death of Jagir Kaur aged arded meagre . It is submitted that the learned Tribunal has wrongly assessed income of the per month, which is highly inadequate. Learned income of the deceased on the higher side. as loss of Further, nd ought to have been awarded. @ 6% per annum from 12% per annum It is accordingly SUNENA 2025.05.02 17:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 5. perused the case file in great detail. 6. on behalf of the appellants. 7. be 62 years on the basis of her Aadhaar Card (Ex.R1) has assessed the notion existing case law on the issue in Court in FAO Insurance Co. Ltd. & Another” Others Vs. Buta Singh & Others” 2019 (5) RCR (Civil) 897 (P&H) cases, in similar facts and circumstances housewives therein had been taken as Rs.3,000/ respectively. In determining the income of the deceased housewife, the learned Tribunal also placed Court in “Lata Wadhwa Vs. State of Bihar” Law Finder Doc ID # 13694, wherein it is held that notional income of housewi according to their age notional income of the deceased as whatsoever has been shown to this Court by learned counsel for the appellants to enhance the said in Tribunal. I have heard learned counsel for the d the case file in great detail. I find no merit whatsoever in the arguments advanced on behalf of the appellants. Record reveals that age of the deceased was proven to be 62 years on the basis of her Aadhaar Card (Ex.R1) has assessed the notional income of the deceased existing case law on the issue in great detail FAO-1016-2014 titled as “Nar Singh & Others Vs. ICICI Lombard Insurance Co. Ltd. & Another” decided on 20.11.2017 Others Vs. Buta Singh & Others” 2019 (5) RCR (Civil) 897 (P&H) in similar facts and circumstances notional income of the deceased housewives therein had been taken as Rs.3,000/ . In determining the income of the deceased housewife, the ribunal also placed reliance on judgment of Hon’ble Supreme “Lata Wadhwa Vs. State of Bihar” Law Finder Doc ID # 13694, wherein it is held that notional income of housewi according to their age. As such, the learned Tribunal has notional income of the deceased as Rs.5,000/ whatsoever has been shown to this Court by learned counsel for the appellants to enhance the said income as assessed by the learned learned counsel for the appellants and I find no merit whatsoever in the arguments advanced Record reveals that age of the deceased was proven to be 62 years on the basis of her Aadhaar Card (Ex.R1). The learned Tribunal income of the deceased after considering the great detail; including judgments of this 2014 titled as “Nar Singh & Others Vs. ICICI Lombard decided on 20.11.2017; and “Sher Singh & Others Vs. Buta Singh & Others” 2019 (5) RCR (Civil) 897 (P&H), in which notional income of the deceased- housewives therein had been taken as Rs.3,000/- and Rs.7,000/- . In determining the income of the deceased housewife, the reliance on judgment of Hon’ble Supreme “Lata Wadhwa Vs. State of Bihar” Law Finder Doc ID # 13694, wherein it is held that notional income of housewives is estimated the learned Tribunal has correctly taken Rs.5,000/- per month. Nothing whatsoever has been shown to this Court by learned counsel for the come as assessed by the learned 5 and I find no merit whatsoever in the arguments advanced SUNENA 2025.05.02 17:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 8. years, no addition was made towards future prospects, in view of Constitution Bench judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Insurance Company Ltd. VS 918174.As deceased was 62 years old, the learned Tribunal had correctly applied multiplier of 7. Thus, calculating annual loss of dependency as Rs.5,000/- x 12 x 7 = Rs.4,20,000/ Rs.15,000/- each towards loss of estate and funeral expenses; and a sum of Rs.40,000/ consortium thereby granting total compensation of Rs.4,20,000/ Rs.15,000/- + Rs.15,000/ 9. made by the learned Tribunal towards personal expenses of the deceased. The claimants No.2 to 4 are the 48, 45 and 30 year deceased Jagir Kaur. As such, there is financial dependency upon the deceased ought to have been made by the learned Tribunal towards personal expenses. Even the same has not been done. In view of the above, it appears that the c excess of their entitlement as per law 10. out which merits interference with the impugned Award. I find the Further, as age of the deceased was proven to be 62 years, no addition was made towards future prospects, in view of Constitution Bench judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Insurance Company Ltd. VS. Pranay Sethi & Others” Law Finder Doc ID # As deceased was 62 years old, the learned Tribunal had correctly applied multiplier of 7. Thus, calculating annual loss of dependency as x 12 x 7 = Rs.4,20,000/-. Learned Tribunal had further each towards loss of estate and funeral expenses; and a sum of Rs.40,000/- to claimant No.1/husband of the deceased towards loss of consortium thereby granting total compensation of Rs.4,20,000/ + Rs.15,000/- + Rs.40,000/- = Rs.4,90,000/ It may be pointed out that made by the learned Tribunal towards personal expenses of the deceased. claimants No.2 to 4 are the 48, 45 and 30 year deceased Jagir Kaur. As such, there is nothing on record to show their financial dependency upon the deceased. Accordingly, a deduction of 50% ought to have been made by the learned Tribunal towards personal expenses. Even the same has not been done. In view of the above, it appears that the claimants have already received compensation far in excess of their entitlement as per law. From the above facts, it is clear that out which merits interference with the impugned Award. I find the Further, as age of the deceased was proven to be 62 years, no addition was made towards future prospects, in view of Constitution Bench judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in “National . Pranay Sethi & Others” Law Finder Doc ID # As deceased was 62 years old, the learned Tribunal had correctly applied multiplier of 7. Thus, calculating annual loss of dependency as . Learned Tribunal had further awarded each towards loss of estate and funeral expenses; and a sum to claimant No.1/husband of the deceased towards loss of consortium thereby granting total compensation of Rs.4,20,000/- + = Rs.4,90,000/-. It may be pointed out that even no deduction has been made by the learned Tribunal towards personal expenses of the deceased. claimants No.2 to 4 are the 48, 45 and 30 year-old sons of the nothing on record to show their Accordingly, a deduction of 50% ought to have been made by the learned Tribunal towards personal expenses. Even the same has not been done. In view of the above, it laimants have already received compensation far in From the above facts, it is clear that no case is made out which merits interference with the impugned Award. I find the 5 SUNENA 2025.05.02 17:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document compensation awarded to the appellant the facts and circumstances of the case. No doubt Chapter 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 ‘ 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 reason be a bonanza nor a source of profit but at the same time it should not be a pittance. In the case of Others” 1994 Volume that misplaced symp guiding factor for determining the compensation. 11. 12. 01.05.2025 Sunena Whether speaking/reasoned: Whether reportable: compensation awarded to the appellants to be the facts and circumstances of the case. No doubt Chapter 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 reason be a bonanza nor a source of profit but at the same time it should not be a pittance. 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 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 to be more than just and fair in the facts and circumstances of the case. 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 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 KSRTC Vs. Susamma Thomas & the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held athy, generosity and benevolence cannot be the guiding factor for determining the compensation. In view of the above, present appeal is dismissed. Pending application(s) if any also stand(s) disposed of. (Nidhi Gupta) Judge 5 SUNENA 2025.05.02 17:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document