FAO-5511-2025 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 138 FAO-5511-2025 (O&M) Date of decision: 17.07.2026 Shanti Devi and another ....Appellants Vs. Sanjay Kumar and others ....Respondents CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSH BUNGER Present: Ms. Kritika Mandhan, Advocate for Mr. Naresh Kaushik, Advocate for the appellants. ***** HARSH BUNGER J. The present  appeal has been filed by claimants, seeking enhancement of compensation of Rs.21,22,972/- awarded by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Panchkula (hereinafter referred to as the “Tribunal”) vide award dated 02.07.2025 passed in MACP case No. 75 of 2024, filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short the 1988 Act). 2. The two claimants are the parents of the deceased-Bimlesh Kumar, who was 28 years of age at the time of accident. 3. Briefly, the claimants filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the 1988 Act before the learned Tribunal on the plea that on 31.05.2024, Bimlesh Kumar (since deceased) was travelling from Baddi side to Pinjore ANKIT 2026.07.17 17:49 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court, Chandigarh FAO-5511-2025 (O&M) -2- side in his truck bearing registration No. HP-67-4679. At about 12.00 A.M., when he reached near village Garira, Pinjore, another truck bearing registration No. HR-68B-0269 came from Pinjore side, which was being driven by Sanjay Kumar (respondent No.1) on the wrong side of the road at a very high speed and without following traffic rules; hit the truck of the deceased on the front driver side. Resultantly, Sh. Bimlesh Kumar suffered several injuries. He was rushed to the Government Hospital, Sector-32, Chandigarh, where he was declared ‘brought dead’. The matter is stated to have been reported to the police and a case FIR No.247 dated 31.05.2025 under Sections 279, 304-A of IPC was registered against Sanjay Kumar in Police Station Pinjore, District Panchkula. 3.1 The claim petition was contested by respondents. 4. The learned Tribunal on the basis of pleadings and evidence (oral as well as documentary) concluded that the deceased Sh. Bimlesh Kumar died in the road accident, which took place due to rash and negligent driving of the offending truck bearing registration No. HR-68B-0269, driven by Sanjay Kumar. The learned Tribunal granted the compensation of Rs.21,22,972/- along with interest @ 6% per annum. All the respondents in the claim petition were jointly and severally held liable for payment of compensation amount, however, since vehicle was duly insured with the Reliance General Insurance Company Limited (respondent No.3 in the claim petition), a direction was issued to the Insurance Company to satisfy the award. 5. The present appeal has been filed by the claimants seeking enhancement of compensation, inter alia, on the following grounds:- ANKIT 2026.07.17 17:49 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court, Chandigarh FAO-5511-2025 (O&M) -3- (a) that the learned Tribunal had taken the income of the deceased on the lower side as Rs.13942.36/- per month. It is submitted that the deceased was a skilled driver of heavy vehicles and was earning Rs.22,000/- per month as the truck driver of Balbir Singh, who was examined as PW-3; (b) that the learned Tribunal had granted interest on the compensation amount on the lower side. 6. No other argument has been raised on behalf of the appellants. 7. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellants and perused the paperbook with his able assistance. 8. A perusal of the record of the case shows that though it was the pleaded case of the appellants that the deceased (Bimlesh Kumar) was a truck driver by profession and was earning Rs.22,000/- per month, from Sh. Balbir Singh (owner of ill-fated truck), who was examined as PW-3, wherein he deposed that Sh. Bimlesh Kumar (deceased) was working as a driver with him since year 2020 and was being paid Rs.22,000/- per month as salary besides all perks, however, he had not brought on record any document to prove the salary of the deceased. Concededly, there is no salary record of the deceased available on the record. 8.1 That apart nothing has been produced by the appellants in the form of bank statement of the deceased to show that he was earning Rs.22,000/- per month and depositing the same in the bank. 9. Once there is no documentary evidence as regards the salary/income of the deceased (Bimlesh Kumar), accordingly, I find no error ANKIT 2026.07.17 17:49 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court, Chandigarh FAO-5511-2025 (O&M) -4- in the assessment of notional income made by the learned Tribunal as Rs.13942.36/- per month on the basis of relevant minimum wage notification dated 22.02.2024 issued by the Labour Commissioner, Haryana, as the accident took place on 31.05.2024. 10. Further age of the deceased (Bimlesh Kumar) was held to be 28 years at the time of death, accordingly, the learned Tribunal had correctly made an addition of 40% towards future prospects and correctly applied multiplier of 17. Further, as there are two claimants, the learned Tribunal had correctly made deduction of 50% towards personal and living expenses, in terms of judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of “Sarla Verma (Smt.) and others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another”, 2009 (6) SCC 121. 11. The learned Tribunal has further awarded Rs.18,000/- on account of expenditure incurred on transportation of body and last rites of the deceased and further Rs.18,000/- on the loss of estate and Rs.48,000/- each to the claimants towards filial consortium; thereby granting total compensation of Rs.21,22,972/- 12. 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 compensation granted to the appellants. 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 profit. Hon'ble Supreme Court in 'State of Haryana & Another v. Jasbir Kaur & Others' Law Finder Doc ID #64043 and Divisional Controller K.S.R.T.C. v. Mahadeva ANKIT 2026.07.17 17:49 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court, Chandigarh FAO-5511-2025 (O&M) -5- 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 the case of "General Manager, KSRTC v. 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. 13. In view of the above, present appeal stands dismissed. 14. All the pending application(s), if any, shall also stand closed. (HARSH BUNGER) 17.07.2026 JUDGE Ankit Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether reportable: Yes/No ANKIT 2026.07.17 17:49 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court, Chandigarh