IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 218 National Insurance Co. Ltd. Dhawan & Others CORAM: Present:- NIDHI GUPTA, J. laying challenge to the Award dated Claims Tribunal, Karnal (hereinafter referred to as “the learned Tribunal”) whereby MACT Case No.MACP/34 of 2016 claimants/respondents No.1 to 4 herein Motor Vehicles Act (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) has been allowed and compensation of Rs.23,51,250/ 2. the basis of pleadings and oral & documentary evidence adduced before it concluded that the deceased Mukesh IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. & Others HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA Mr. Gopal Mittal, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Randeep Singh, Advocate for respondents No.1 to 4 *** NIDHI GUPTA, J. Present appeal has been laying challenge to the Award dated 17.04.2017 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Karnal (hereinafter referred to as “the learned Tribunal”) whereby MACT Case No.MACP/34 of 2016 respondents No.1 to 4 herein, under Sections 166 and 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) has been allowed and compensation of Rs.23,51,250/- has been awarded to the claimants. Brief facts of the case are that the learned Tribunal on the basis of pleadings and oral & documentary evidence adduced before it concluded that the deceased Mukesh had died due to the injuries suffered IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO-5035-2017(O&M) Date of decision: 28.04.2025 ...Appellant(s) ...Respondent(s) HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA , Advocate , Advocate for respondents No.1 to 4. appeal has been filed by the Insurance Company 17.04.2017 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Karnal (hereinafter referred to as “the learned Tribunal”) dated 29.07.2016 filed by the under Sections 166 and 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) has been allowed has been awarded to the claimants. Brief facts of the case are that the learned Tribunal on the basis of pleadings and oral & documentary evidence adduced before it had died due to the injuries suffered 9 filed by the Insurance Company 17.04.2017 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Karnal (hereinafter referred to as “the learned Tribunal”) dated 29.07.2016 filed by the under Sections 166 and 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) has been allowed Brief facts of the case are that the learned Tribunal on the basis of pleadings and oral & documentary evidence adduced before it had died due to the injuries suffered SUNENA 2025.05.02 17:46 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document by him in a motor vehicular accident that took place the rash and negligent driving of the canter bearing registration No.PB 02AF-9855 (hereinafter referred to as “the offending vehicle”) respondent No.5. The offending vehicle was owned by respondent No.6 and insured by the appellant/ minor sons and parents of the deceased Mukesh. 3. assails the impugned Award on the following a) compensation as motorcycle bearing registration No.HR submitted that to the head injuries suffered Section 128 of the Act, the deceased was liable for 50% contributory negligence. However, this aspect of the matter has not been considered by the learned Tribunal while passing the impugned Award b) higher side as per DC rates as Rs.10,500/ relevant Minimum Wage Notification dated 01.07.2016, income of the deceased ought to have been taken as Rs.8, c) considered to be a dependent upon the deceased. However, he could not by him in a motor vehicular accident that took place the rash and negligent driving of the canter bearing registration No.PB 9855 (hereinafter referred to as “the offending vehicle”) respondent No.5. The offending vehicle was owned by respondent No.6 and insured by the appellant/Insurance Company. The 4 claimants are the 2 minor sons and parents of the deceased Mukesh. Learned counsel for the appellant/Insurance Company the impugned Award on the following that the claimants are not entitled to the compensation as, on the date of accident deceased Mukesh was driving his motorcycle bearing registration No.HR-05P- submitted that as per the Post-Mortem Report, to the head injuries suffered by him. It is contended that accordingly, as per Section 128 of the Act, the deceased was liable for 50% contributory negligence. However, this aspect of the matter has not been considered by the learned Tribunal while passing the impugned Award that income of the deceased has been taken on the higher side as per DC rates as Rs.10,500/- per month; whereas as per the relevant Minimum Wage Notification dated 01.07.2016, income of the deceased ought to have been taken as Rs.8,070/ that claimant No.4/father of the deceased was also considered to be a dependent upon the deceased. However, he could not by him in a motor vehicular accident that took place on 08.06.2016 due to the rash and negligent driving of the canter bearing registration No.PB- 9855 (hereinafter referred to as “the offending vehicle”) by respondent No.5. The offending vehicle was owned by respondent No.6 and Insurance Company. The 4 claimants are the 2 minor sons and parents of the deceased Mukesh. Learned counsel for the appellant/Insurance Company the impugned Award on the following grounds: - that the claimants are not entitled to the awarded deceased Mukesh was driving his -2061 without any helmet. It is Mortem Report, the deceased has died due by him. It is contended that accordingly, as per Section 128 of the Act, the deceased was liable for 50% contributory negligence. However, this aspect of the matter has not been considered by the learned Tribunal while passing the impugned Award; t income of the deceased has been taken on the per month; whereas as per the relevant Minimum Wage Notification dated 01.07.2016, income of the 070/- per month; that claimant No.4/father of the deceased was also considered to be a dependent upon the deceased. However, he could not 9 due to - by respondent No.5. The offending vehicle was owned by respondent No.6 and Insurance Company. The 4 claimants are the 2 Learned counsel for the appellant/Insurance Company awarded deceased Mukesh was driving his 2061 without any helmet. It is has died due by him. It is contended that accordingly, as per Section 128 of the Act, the deceased was liable for 50% contributory negligence. However, this aspect of the matter has not been considered by t income of the deceased has been taken on the per month; whereas as per the relevant Minimum Wage Notification dated 01.07.2016, income of the that claimant No.4/father of the deceased was also considered to be a dependent upon the deceased. However, he could not SUNENA 2025.05.02 17:46 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document have been taken as a dependent; and therefore, a deduction of 1/3 to have been made towards personal expenses; whereas learned has made a deduction of 1/4 d) 50%; whereas future prospects ought to have been added @ 40% 4. vehemently contested by learned counsel representing the claimants who submits that the impugned Award suffers from no error and the present appeal deserves to be dismissed. 5. 6. the case file in great detail. 7. the appellant for the reasons recorded hereinbelow: a) that a deduction negligence attributed to the deceased as he was driving his motorcycle without a helmet However, the said argument of the appellant is liable to be rejected as a perusal of the record reveals that in the written statement filed by the appellant before the learned Tribunal, no such plea has been raised by the have been taken as a dependent; and therefore, a deduction of 1/3 to have been made towards personal expenses; whereas learned has made a deduction of 1/4th; that future prospects have whereas keeping in view the fact that the deceased was future prospects ought to have been added @ 40% The above-said contentions of the appellant are vehemently contested by learned counsel representing the claimants who submits that the impugned Award suffers from no error and the present appeal deserves to be dismissed. No other argument is made on I have heard learned counsel for the parties and the case file in great detail. I find no merit in the submissions advanced on behalf of the appellant for the reasons recorded hereinbelow: It has been firstly contended on behalf of the appellant deduction of 50% ought to have been made attributed to the deceased as he was driving his motorcycle without a helmet and as the deceased had died due to the he However, the said argument of the appellant is liable to be rejected as a perusal of the record reveals that in the written statement filed by the appellant before the learned Tribunal, no such plea has been raised by the have been taken as a dependent; and therefore, a deduction of 1/3rd ought to have been made towards personal expenses; whereas learned Tribunal that future prospects have been awarded at the rate of keeping in view the fact that the deceased was 36 years old, future prospects ought to have been added @ 40%. said contentions of the appellant are vehemently contested by learned counsel representing the claimants who submits that the impugned Award suffers from no error and the present No other argument is made on behalf of the parties. learned counsel for the parties and perused I find no merit in the submissions advanced on behalf of the appellant for the reasons recorded hereinbelow:- It has been firstly contended on behalf of the appellant ought to have been made towards contributory attributed to the deceased as he was driving his motorcycle the deceased had died due to the head injuries. However, the said argument of the appellant is liable to be rejected as a perusal of the record reveals that in the written statement filed by the appellant before the learned Tribunal, no such plea has been raised by the 9 ought Tribunal at the rate of , said contentions of the appellant are vehemently contested by learned counsel representing the claimants who submits that the impugned Award suffers from no error and the present d I find no merit in the submissions advanced on behalf of It has been firstly contended on behalf of the appellant contributory attributed to the deceased as he was driving his motorcycle ad injuries. However, the said argument of the appellant is liable to be rejected as a perusal of the record reveals that in the written statement filed by the appellant before the learned Tribunal, no such plea has been raised by the SUNENA 2025.05.02 17:46 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document appellant. Resultantl framed by the learned Tribunal. not framed as no pleading to this effect was made by the appellant before the learned Tribunal. appellant that even no evidence was led by the appellant to prove any contributory negligence on part of the deceased. the appellant is rejected. b) that income of the deceased has been taken on the higher side as Rs.10,500/- per month on the basis of DC rates; whereas the said income ought to have been assessed on the basis of relevant Minimum Wage Notification. that the deceased was working as a mason and earning Rs.20,000/ month. Admittedly no proof of income was produced support of the said contention. Tribunal assessed notional income of the deceased as Rs.10,500/ month as per the Collector rate, Karnal. No doubt, the income pr the Minimum Wages Act as revised from time to time can provide the basic criteria or guidelines to assess the incom case may be, however, the facts and circumstances of each case ha evaluated individually. mandating that income has to be assessed only as per the Minimum Wages Resultantly, no issue in respect of contributory negligence was framed by the learned Tribunal. Needless to say, an issue to this effect was not framed as no pleading to this effect was made by the appellant before the learned Tribunal. It has also been admitted by learned counsel for the appellant that even no evidence was led by the appellant to prove any contributory negligence on part of the deceased. the appellant is rejected. It has next been contended on behalf o that income of the deceased has been taken on the higher side as per month on the basis of DC rates; whereas the said income ought to have been assessed on the basis of relevant Minimum Wage Record reveals that it was the pleaded case of the that the deceased was working as a mason and earning Rs.20,000/ dmittedly no proof of income was produced support of the said contention. It was in this background that the learned unal assessed notional income of the deceased as Rs.10,500/ month as per the Collector rate, Karnal. No doubt, the income pr the Minimum Wages Act as revised from time to time can provide the basic criteria or guidelines to assess the income of the deceased or injured as the case may be, however, the facts and circumstances of each case ha evaluated individually. There cannot be and mandating that income has to be assessed only as per the Minimum Wages y, no issue in respect of contributory negligence was Needless to say, an issue to this effect was not framed as no pleading to this effect was made by the appellant before been admitted by learned counsel for the appellant that even no evidence was led by the appellant to prove any contributory negligence on part of the deceased. As such, this argument of It has next been contended on behalf of the appellant that income of the deceased has been taken on the higher side as per month on the basis of DC rates; whereas the said income ought to have been assessed on the basis of relevant Minimum Wage was the pleaded case of the claimants that the deceased was working as a mason and earning Rs.20,000/- per dmittedly no proof of income was produced by the claimants in It was in this background that the learned unal assessed notional income of the deceased as Rs.10,500/- per month as per the Collector rate, Karnal. No doubt, the income prescribed by the Minimum Wages Act as revised from time to time can provide the basic e of the deceased or injured as the case may be, however, the facts and circumstances of each case have to be There cannot be and there is no straitjacket formula mandating that income has to be assessed only as per the Minimum Wages 9 y, no issue in respect of contributory negligence was Needless to say, an issue to this effect was not framed as no pleading to this effect was made by the appellant before been admitted by learned counsel for the appellant that even no evidence was led by the appellant to prove any As such, this argument of f the appellant that income of the deceased has been taken on the higher side as per month on the basis of DC rates; whereas the said income ought to have been assessed on the basis of relevant Minimum Wage claimants per by the claimants in It was in this background that the learned per by the Minimum Wages Act as revised from time to time can provide the basic e of the deceased or injured as the to be formula mandating that income has to be assessed only as per the Minimum Wages SUNENA 2025.05.02 17:46 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Act. The Act being a beneficial legislation, a narrow construction would be anathema to the purpose of the Act. This Court in titled as “New India Assuran & Others” has held that Minimum Wages “ assess income of the deceased, income of the victim and the computation of the income on the basis of Minimum Wages rates fixed by the Deputy Commissioner is also a valid criteria as assessed by the learned Tribunal. come in the evidence of claimant No.3/PW1/mother of the deceased that the deceased was a skilled maso taking contracts for the construction of kothis, shops, etc. Even PW2 Kuldeep (eyewitness version. Even PW3 had tendered his affidavit (Ex.PW3/A), had testified skilled rajmistri who had also constructed the house of PW3 in 2012 which he/PW3, Moreover, PW1 has categorically stated in her oral testimony as also in the affidavit (Ex.PW1/A) that the deceased was the only earning member of the family and whole family was dependent upon his income. Nothing has been shown by the appellant to this Court to disc c) Company is that claimant No.4/father of the deceased has been wrongly Act. The Act being a beneficial legislation, a narrow construction would be anathema to the purpose of the Act. This Court in “New India Assurance Company Limited Vs. Geeta Devi @ Kavita has held that Minimum Wages “ assess income of the deceased, income of the victim and the computation of the income on the basis of Minimum Wages rates fixed by the Deputy ommissioner is also a valid criteria.” As such, I find no error in the income as assessed by the learned Tribunal. It is also relevant to note that it come in the evidence of claimant No.3/PW1/mother of the deceased that the deceased was a skilled mason Rajmistri and was doing the work of taking contracts for the construction of kothis, shops, etc. Even PW2 Kuldeep (eyewitness-cum-complainant in FIR) has supported the said version. Even PW3 Satbir Singh who was a co ered his affidavit (Ex.PW3/A), had testified skilled rajmistri who had also constructed the house of PW3 in 2012 /PW3, had paid Rs.600/- per day as wages PW1 has categorically stated in her oral testimony as also in the affidavit (Ex.PW1/A) that the deceased was the only earning member of the family and whole family was dependent upon his income. Nothing has been by the appellant to this Court to discard the said evidence. The next contention of the appellant/Insurance Company is that claimant No.4/father of the deceased has been wrongly Act. The Act being a beneficial legislation, a narrow construction thereof would be anathema to the purpose of the Act. This Court in FAO-5294-2016 ce Company Limited Vs. Geeta Devi @ Kavita has held that Minimum Wages “cannot be the sole criteria to assess income of the deceased, income of the victim and the computation of the income on the basis of Minimum Wages rates fixed by the Deputy ” As such, I find no error in the income is also relevant to note that it has come in the evidence of claimant No.3/PW1/mother of the deceased that n Rajmistri and was doing the work of taking contracts for the construction of kothis, shops, etc. Even PW2 complainant in FIR) has supported the said who was a co-villager of the deceased and ered his affidavit (Ex.PW3/A), had testified that Mukesh was a skilled rajmistri who had also constructed the house of PW3 in 2012 for per day as wages to the deceased. PW1 has categorically stated in her oral testimony as also in the affidavit (Ex.PW1/A) that the deceased was the only earning member of the family and whole family was dependent upon his income. Nothing has been ard the said evidence. The next contention of the appellant/Insurance Company is that claimant No.4/father of the deceased has been wrongly 9 thereof 2016 ce Company Limited Vs. Geeta Devi @ Kavita cannot be the sole criteria to assess income of the deceased, income of the victim and the computation of the income on the basis of Minimum Wages rates fixed by the Deputy ” As such, I find no error in the income has come in the evidence of claimant No.3/PW1/mother of the deceased that n Rajmistri and was doing the work of taking contracts for the construction of kothis, shops, etc. Even PW2 complainant in FIR) has supported the said villager of the deceased and that Mukesh was a for . PW1 has categorically stated in her oral testimony as also in the affidavit (Ex.PW1/A) that the deceased was the only earning member of the family and whole family was dependent upon his income. Nothing has been The next contention of the appellant/Insurance Company is that claimant No.4/father of the deceased has been wrongly SUNENA 2025.05.02 17:46 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document taken as a dependent upon the deceased. However, even the said contention is liable to be rejected as admitted petition in 2016, father of the deceased was 65 years of age. framed by the learned Tribunal to the effect that affirmative, whether the claimants Dhawan, Yash (minors), Parkasho Devi and Amar Singh are entitled for the compensation on account of death of deceased Mukesh son of Amar Singh if so to what extent on what terms and conditions and from whom? OPP”, the learned Tribunal holding the claima deceased. Nothing to the contrary has been shown by the appellant. As such, the deduction by the learned Tribunal. d) basis of his Aadhaar Card (Ex.R1). As does calculating annual dependency to be Rs.1,26,000/- personal expenses, (Rs.18,90,000/ be Rs.21,26,250/ prospects @ 50%. It has learned Tribunal has same ought to have been @ 40%. taken as a dependent upon the deceased. However, even the said contention is liable to be rejected as admitted petition in 2016, father of the deceased was 65 years of age. framed by the learned Tribunal to the effect that affirmative, whether the claimants Dhawan, Yash (minors), Parkasho Devi and Amar Singh are entitled for the compensation on account of death of deceased Mukesh son of Amar Singh if so to what extent on what terms and conditions and from whom? OPP”, has been decided in the affirmative by the learned Tribunal holding the claimant No.4 to be a dependent upon the Nothing to the contrary has been shown by the appellant. As such, the deduction towards personal expenses, by the learned Tribunal. The deceased was proven to be 36 years of age on the basis of his Aadhaar Card (Ex.R1). As such, does calculating annual dependency to be ₹18,90,000/ - x 15 = Rs.18,90,000/-). Deduction of 1/4 expenses, and annual income was assessed to be Rs.14,17,500/ (Rs.18,90,000/- - Rs.4,72,500/-). Annual dependency has been calculated to be Rs.21,26,250/- (Rs.14,17,500/- + Rs.7,08,750/ prospects @ 50%. It has been lastly contended by the appellant that the learned Tribunal has wrongly granted future prospects @ 50%; whereas the same ought to have been @ 40%. However, the learned Tribunal has taken as a dependent upon the deceased. However, even the said contention is liable to be rejected as admittedly at the time of filing of claim petition in 2016, father of the deceased was 65 years of age. Issue No.2 framed by the learned Tribunal to the effect that “If issue no.1 is proved in affirmative, whether the claimants Dhawan, Yash (minors), Parkasho Devi and Amar Singh are entitled for the compensation on account of death of deceased Mukesh son of Amar Singh if so to what extent on what terms and has been decided in the affirmative by nt No.4 to be a dependent upon the Nothing to the contrary has been shown by the appellant. As towards personal expenses, has been correctly made The deceased was proven to be 36 years of age on the such, multiplier of 15 was applied; ₹18,90,000/–(Rs.10,500/- x 12 = ). Deduction of 1/4th was made towards and annual income was assessed to be Rs.14,17,500/- Annual dependency has been calculated to + Rs.7,08,750/-) by adding future lastly contended by the appellant that the granted future prospects @ 50%; whereas the However, the learned Tribunal has 9 taken as a dependent upon the deceased. However, even the said ly at the time of filing of claim Issue No.2 “If issue no.1 is proved in affirmative, whether the claimants Dhawan, Yash (minors), Parkasho Devi and Amar Singh are entitled for the compensation on account of death of deceased Mukesh son of Amar Singh if so to what extent on what terms and has been decided in the affirmative by nt No.4 to be a dependent upon the Nothing to the contrary has been shown by the appellant. As has been correctly made The deceased was proven to be 36 years of age on the ; x 12 = was made towards - Annual dependency has been calculated to by adding future lastly contended by the appellant that the granted future prospects @ 50%; whereas the However, the learned Tribunal has SUNENA 2025.05.02 17:46 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document granted the said amount by placing reliance upon judgment of the Singh & Others” Law Finder Doc ID # 442228 therein was prospects. No judgment to the contrary has for the appellant. 8. Court in (SC) SLP No.13931 of 2017 Vs. Vinish Jain & Others” Law Finder Doc ID # 977386 where difference in compensation by this Court as, such variation in compensation is within permissible limits. 9. Court has been followed Director, Divisional Controller Versus Alikutty and Others” Law Finder Doc Id # 1885188 below:- “18. It is to be borne in mind, the accident occurred on 23,2,201 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 Tribunal is permitted to do some guess work and also exercise discretion to fix the reasonable and just compensation, for which there cannot be any strai mathematical precision. In Vs. Vinish the Hon'ble granted the said amount by placing reliance upon judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Singh & Others” Law Finder Doc ID # 442228 therein was 33 years and addition of 50% has been made towards future No judgment to the contrary has for the appellant. In any event, as per judgment of the (SC) SLP No.13931 of 2017 titled as Vs. Vinish Jain & Others” Law Finder Doc ID # 977386 where difference in compensation is minor, it does not warrant interference by this Court as, such variation in compensation is within permissible limits. This above-said judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court has been followed by the Kerala High Court in “ Director, Divisional Controller Versus Alikutty and Others” Law Finder Doc Id # 1885188. Relevant para 18 of the said judgment is reproduced “18. It is to be borne in mind, the accident occurred on 23,2,201 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 discretion to fix the reasonable and just compensation, for which there cannot be any straightjacket formula based on mathematical precision. In New India Assurance Company Vinish Jain and Others [(2018) 3 SCC 619], Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that if the fixation of granted the said amount by placing reliance upon three-Judge Bench Hon’ble Supreme Court in “Rajesh and Others Vs. Rajbir Singh & Others” Law Finder Doc ID # 442228, wherein age of the deceased and addition of 50% has been made towards future No judgment to the contrary has been cited by learned counsel as per judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme titled as “New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Vinish Jain & Others” Law Finder Doc ID # 977386, it has been held that , it does not warrant interference by this Court as, such variation in compensation is within permissible limits. said judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme by the Kerala High Court in “The Managing Director, Divisional Controller Versus Alikutty and Others” Law Finder . Relevant para 18 of the said judgment is reproduced “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 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 tjacket formula based on New India Assurance Company Jain and Others [(2018) 3 SCC 619], Supreme Court has held that if the fixation of 9 Judge Bench “Rajesh and Others Vs. Rajbir wherein age of the deceased and addition of 50% has been made towards future been cited by learned counsel Hon’ble Supreme “New India Assurance Co. Ltd. it has been held that , it does not warrant interference by this Court as, such variation in compensation is within permissible limits. SUNENA 2025.05.02 17:46 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document compensation is within permissible limits, the courts should normally not interfere with such awards”. 10. Court in “Reliance General Others”, Law Finder Doc ID under:- “16. The other area of dispute is that the Tribunal after awarding compensation under the conventional heads has awarded Rs.75,000/ Rs.10,000/ 17. In New India Assurance Co., Ltd v. Vineesh.J[2018 (3) SCC 619], the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the Appellate Court can permit variation of plus or minus 4 11. funeral rites; affection; and has Rs.23,51,250/ 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 Others”, Law Finder Doc ID # 1921609, paras 16. The other area of dispute is that the Tribunal after 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.J[2018 (3) SCC 619], the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the Appellate Court can permit variation of plus or minus 4 Learned Tribunal further awarded Rs.25,000/ ; and Rs.1 lakh each to the minor sons towards loss of love and and has accordingly directed that the total compensation of Rs.23,51,250/- be disbursed in the following manner: “14. The total amount of compensation comes to Rs.23,51,250/- (21,26,250 +25,000/ that the amount of Rs. 1.00 lac each shall be paid to the petitioners no.1 and 2 minors on account of love and affection towards the minor childrens. The remaining amount of Rs.21,51,250/- shall be disbursed between the petitioners in the ratio i.e. 70% of the said amount to petitioners no.1 & 2 Yash Pal and Dhawan minors and the remaining 30% of the said amount shall be distributed among the petitioners no. 3 & 4 in equal shares, who are parents of the deceased Mukesh Kumar along with interest @ 7.5% per annum.” compensation is within permissible limits, the courts should normally not interfere with such awards”. Above said view has been reiterated by the Kerala High Insurance Company Limited Vs. Adila and paras 16 and 17 of which read as 16. The other area of dispute is that the Tribunal after awarding compensation under the conventional heads has towards loss of love and affection and awarded towards pain and sufferings. 17. In New India Assurance Co., Ltd v. Vineesh.J[2018 (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.” Learned Tribunal further awarded Rs.25,000/- towards and Rs.1 lakh each to the minor sons towards loss of love and directed that the total compensation of e following manner: - 14. The total amount of compensation comes to (21,26,250 +25,000/-+2,00,000). It is made clear that the amount of Rs. 1.00 lac each shall be paid to the petitioners no.1 and 2 minors on account of love and affection towards the minor childrens. The remaining amount of shall be disbursed between the petitioners in the ratio i.e. 70% of the said amount to petitioners no.1 & 2 Yash Pal and Dhawan minors and the remaining 30% of the tributed among the petitioners no. 3 & 4 in equal shares, who are parents of the deceased Mukesh Kumar along with interest @ 7.5% per annum.” 9 towards and Rs.1 lakh each to the minor sons towards loss of love and directed that the total compensation of 14. The total amount of compensation comes to +2,00,000). It is made clear that the amount of Rs. 1.00 lac each shall be paid to the petitioners no.1 and 2 minors on account of love and affection towards the minor childrens. The remaining amount of shall be disbursed between the petitioners in the ratio i.e. 70% of the said amount to petitioners no.1 & 2 Yash Pal and Dhawan minors and the remaining 30% of the tributed among the petitioners no. 3 & 4 in equal shares, who are parents of the deceased Mukesh SUNENA 2025.05.02 17:46 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 12. compensation has been awarded to the case is made out which merits interference with the impugned Award. I find the compensation awarded to the facts and circumstances of the case. Hon’ble Supreme Court in ‘ Haryana & Anothe 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 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’ com law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and therefore, does not warrant the interference of this Court. 13. 14. 28.04.2025 Sunena Whether speaking/reasoned: Whether reportable: From the above facts, it is clear that a very just and fair compensation has been awarded to the claimants case is made out which merits interference with the impugned Award. I find the compensation awarded to the claimants facts and circumstances of the case. Hon’ble Supreme Court in ‘ Haryana & Another Vs. Jasbir Kaur & Others’ Law Finder Doc ID # 64043 ‘Divisional Controller K.S.R.T.C. Vs. Mahadev Shetty’, (2003) 7 SCC has held that the amount of compensation should be just and reasonable, it should neither be a bonanza nor a source of profit 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 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 From the above facts, it is clear that a very just and fair claimants. Accordingly, I find no case is made out which merits interference with the impugned Award. I claimants to be just and fair in the facts and circumstances of the case. Hon’ble Supreme Court in ‘State of r Vs. Jasbir Kaur & Others’ Law Finder Doc ID # 64043 ‘Divisional Controller K.S.R.T.C. Vs. Mahadev Shetty’, (2003) 7 SCC 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 pensation, which is in accordance with the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and therefore, does not In view of the above, present appeal is dismissed. Pending application(s) if any also stand(s) disposed of. (Nidhi Gupta) Judge 9 SUNENA 2025.05.02 17:46 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document