IN THE HI 251 Smt. Bimla De Jagvinder & O CORAM: Present:- NIDHI GUPTA, seeking enhan Motor Accide learned Tribun No.184 of 201 of the Motor V aforesaid com annum from t three respond of compensat Jitender @ Gu 2. the basis of pl E HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HA Devi Vs. & Others HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE NID Mr. Parveen Moudgil, Advo Ms. Sunita Nain, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Pardeep Goyal, Advoca Ms. Simran, Advocate for respondent No.3. *** PTA, J. Present appeal has been hancement of compensation of Rs cident Claims Tribunal, Jind (here ibunal”) vide Award dated 15.05.2 2017 filed by the claimant/appella tor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter r compensation has been awarded alo om the date of filing the claim pe ondents were held jointly and sever nsation. The claimant/appellant is Gugu. Brief facts of the case are of pleadings and evidence adduced p. 1 D HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO-6704-2019 (O&M) Date of decision: 21.01.2025 ...Appellant(s) ...Respondent(s) NIDHI GUPTA dvocate for ate vocate een filed by the sole claimant f Rs.12,94,840/- awarded by the hereinafter referred to as “the 5.2019 passed in claim petition ellant herein under Section 166 ter referred to as “the Act”). The d along with interest @ 7.5% per petition till realisation. All the everally liable to pay the amount the mother of the deceased- are that the learned Tribunal on ced before it concluded that the 6 SUNENA 2025.01.27 19:09 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document deceased-Jiten a motor vehic and negligent (hereinafter re The offending respondent No 3.1 of compensati transport exp from the place private vehicl granted. 3.2 by way of loss 4. Company opp submits that t in the facts a counsel prays 5. 6. perused the ca Jitender @ Gugu had died due to th ehicular accident that took place on gent driving of the bus bearing r er referred to as “the offending ve ding vehicle was owned by respo t No.3. Learned counsel for the ap nsation on the ground that nothing expenses. It is submitted that the place of accident which was 15 kms hicle and therefore, transport exp It is further submitted tha loss of estate. Learned counsel for r opposes the prayer made on be at the compensation as awarded to ts and circumstances of the prese ays for dismissal of the present app No other argument is raise I have heard learned co e case file in great detail. Page 2 of 6 to the injuries suffered by him in e on 06.11.2017 due to the rash ng registration No.HR-56A-9563 g vehicle”) by respondent No.1. spondent No.2 and insured by e appellant seeks enhancement hing has been granted by way of the deceased had to be taken kms away from the hospital in a expenses ought to have been that nothing has been granted r respondent No.3/Insurance n behalf of the appellant and d to the appellant is just and fair resent case. Therefore, learned appeal. aised on behalf of the parties. counsel for the parties and 6 SUNENA 2025.01.27 19:09 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 7. pleaded case work and dair there was no claimants reg learned Tribun per month as Government. appellant to en 8.1 years on the prospects wer was assessed a 8.2 dependant tak 8.3 and calculated 8.4 expenses. 8.5 8.6 9. nothing has b Perusal of record of the ase of the claimants that the dece dairy farming and was earning ₹25, no evidence, let an authentic proo regarding the income and occup ribunal assessed the income of the h as that of an unskilled laboure nt. Even before this Court, nothing to entail reassessment of the incom The age of the deceased the basis of Post-Mortem Report were added to the income of the de sed as Rs.11,480/- (Rs.8,200/- + Rs. Deduction of 50% was cor t taking monthly dependency to Rs. Learned Tribunal correctly ated loss of dependency as Rs.12,39 Rs.15,000/- was also Rs.40,000/- was also grante Thus, total compensation c It has been argued on b as been granted towards transporta p. 3 the case shows that it was the deceased was doing agricultural ₹25,000 per month. However, as proof brought on record by the cupation of the deceased, the f the deceased to be Rs.8,200/- ourer as fixed by the Haryana thing has been produced by the come of the deceased. ased was determined to be 22 (Ex.P1). Thus, 40% of future e deceased and monthly income Rs.40% of Rs.8,200/-). s correctly made as there was 1 Rs.5,740/-. ctly applied the multiplier of 18 2,39,840/- (Rs.5,740/- x 12 x 18). so granted towards funeral ranted towards filial consortium. ion comes to Rs.12,94,840/-. n behalf of the appellant that ortation expenses, or by way of 6 SUNENA 2025.01.27 19:09 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document loss of estate judgment of t titled as “New been held tha only, it does n compensation 10. Court has bee Director, Divis Doc Id # 1885 below:- “18. It It is mo knockin accoun Tribuna discret there mathe Vs. Vin the Ho compe norma 11. Court in “Re Others”, Law under:- “16. T awardi state. I find the said argument t of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. V that where difference in compensa es not warrant interference by thi tion is within permissible limits. This above-said judgmen been followed by the Kerala Hig Divisional Controller Versus Alikut 1885188. Relevant para 18 of the s 8. It is to be borne in mind, the accid is more than 2 ½ years since the res ocking at the doors of the Courts count of the death of the bread-win ibunal is permitted to do some gues scretion to fix the reasonable and ju ere cannot be any straightjac athematical precision. In New In Vinish Jain and Others [( Hon'ble Supreme Court has held mpensation is within permissible rmally not interfere with such award Above said view has been r Reliance General Insurance Com Law Finder Doc ID # 1921609, para 6. The other area of dispute is arding compensation under the p. 4 nt to be misplaced as, as per t in (SC) SLP No.13931 of 2017 Vs. Vinish Jain & Others”, it has ensation is about 4 to 5 per cent this Court as, such variation in ment of the Hon’ble Supreme High Court in “The Managing likutty and Others” Law Finder he said judgment is reproduced accident occurred on 23,2,2019. e respondents 1 to 4 have been urts seeking compensation on winner. It is trite law that the guess work and also exercise its nd just compensation, for which tjacket formula based on India Assurance Company [(2018) 3 SCC 619], held that if the fixation of ible limits, the courts should wards”. en reiterated by the Kerala High Company Limited Vs. Adila and paras 16 and 17 of which read as is that the Tribunal after the conventional heads has 6 SUNENA 2025.01.27 19:09 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document awarde Rs.10,0 17. In 619], t Court c 12. counsel for the 13. compensation has been sho compensation discussion abo with the imp appellant to b doubt Chapter the Hon’ble Su a windfall or Haryana Vs. Controller K. that the amou neither be a b not be a pitta given case is, view, in the p compensation arded Rs.75,000/- towards loss of .10,000/- awarded towards pain and . In New India Assurance Co., Ltd 9], the Hon'ble Supreme Court has urt can permit variation of plus or m No case law to the contrar r the appellants. From the above facts, it is tion has been awarded to the app shown to this Court that would tion granted to the appellant. above, I find no case is made ou impugned Award. I find the com to be just and fair in the facts and c pter-12 of the Act is a beneficial leg le Supreme Court, the same cannot l or a source of profit. Hon’ble S Vs. Jasbir Kaur’ Law Finder Doc K.S.R.T.C. Vs. Mahadev Shetty’, mount of compensation should be j a bonanza nor a source of profit bu pittance. Thus, all that has to be d is, that the compensation accorde he present case, the learned Tribun tion, which is in accordance with p. 5 ss of love and affection and n and sufferings. Ltd v. Vineesh.J[2018 (3) SCC t has held that the Appellate or minus 4 to 5 percent.” ntrary has been cited by learned it is clear that a very just and fair appellant. Nothing whatsoever uld merit enhancement of the t. Accordingly, in view of the e out which merits interference compensation awarded to the nd circumstances of the case. No l legislation yet, as cautioned by nnot be allowed to be treated as le Supreme Court in ‘State of oc ID # 64043 and ‘Divisional ty’, (2003) 7 SCC 197, has held be just and reasonable, it should fit but at the same time it should be determined in the facts of a orded is ‘just’. In my considered ibunal has awarded a very ‘just’ with the law laid down by the 6 SUNENA 2025.01.27 19:09 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Hon’ble Supre of this Court. SCC 176, the generosity and the compensa 14. 15. 21.01.2025 Sunena Whether spea Whether repo upreme Court and therefore, does n urt. In the case of KSRTC Vs. Susam the Hon’ble Supreme Court has he and benevolence cannot be the gu nsation. In view of the above, prese Pending application(s) if an peaking/reasoned: Yes/No eportable: Yes/No p. 6 es not warrant the interference samma Thomas 1994 Volume-II s held that misplaced sympathy, e guiding factor for determining resent appeal is dismissed. if any also stand(s) disposed of. (Nidhi Gupta) Judge 6 SUNENA 2025.01.27 19:09 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document