IN THE HI 232 Smt. Kiran Dev Rakesh Kumar Smt. Kiran Dev Rakesh Kumar CORAM: Present:- NIDHI GUPTA, CM-21301-CII 6033-2018 filed seeking for seeking co arranging the appeal for enh time to approa given proper in appellant know E HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HA Devi & Others Vs. mar & Others *** Devi & Others Vs. mar & Others HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE NID Mr. Bhisham Kumar Majoka for the appellants. *** PTA, J. CII-2018 IN FAO-6026-2018 & C These applications under S ng condonation of delay of 1032 day The only reason mentione g condonation of inordinate dela the funds the applicants/appellant r enhancement of compensation. Th proach the earlier counsel for his ca per inquiry to her, then appellant h knows that the earlier counsel did n D HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 13.01.2025 FAO-6026-2018 (O&M) ...Appellant(s) ...Respondent(s) FAO-6033-2018 (O&M) ...Appellant(s) ...Respondent(s) NIDHI GUPTA ajoka, Advocate & CM-21321-CII-2018 IN FAO- er Section 5 of Limitation Act are days in filing the appeal(s). ioned in the above application(s) delay of 1032 days is that “...on ellants engaged a Counsel to file n. Thereafter the appellants many is case, but the earlier counsel not nt herself inquired her case, then did not filed the said appeal with 8 are (s) .on file ny ot en ith SUNENA 2025.01.16 14:57 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document the reason applicant/appe present appe consequently a valid grounds the applicant dates are men funds or enga find out that mentioned as appellants. Ac of such extrao MAIN CASE FAO-6026-201 enhancement Accident Claim Tribunal”) vide under Section as “the Act” consideration on best known to the earlie appellant has engaged the presen appeal immediately and withou tly a delay of 1032 days took place i A bare reading of the abo nds have been given. Only very vagu ant for seeking condonation of inor mentioned as to when the applic ngage the previous counsel or on hat the earlier counsel had not file d as to on what date the present . Accordingly, no ground whatsoeve traordinary delay of 1032 days in fili As such, the present applic 2018 Present appeal has been fil ent of compensation of Rs.6,83 laims Tribunal, Rewari (hereinafter vide Award dated 06.01.2015 pass tion 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, ct”) upon the death of deceas tion of all the pleadings and eviden earlier counsel. 3. That the resent counsel who is filling the thout any father delay. That ace in filing the present appeal...”. above shows that no cogent or vague reasons have been cited by inordinate delay of 1032 days. No plicants managed to arrange the on which date did the appellant filed the appeal. Even nothing is ent counsel was engaged by the oever is made out for condonation n filing the appeal(s). plications stand dismissed. n filed by the claimants seeking 6,83,900/- granted by Motor after referred to as “the learned passed in MACP/1841/2013 filed ct, 1988 (hereinafter referred to ceased-Mahender Singh. Upon idence brought on record by the 8 the the at or by No he nt is he ion SUNENA 2025.01.16 14:57 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document parties, the lea the injuries su on 31.05.2013 registration N vehicle”) bein and insured b widow; ii) 23 70-year-old m FAO-6033-201 claim petition claimants, wh on account of in question. been awarded date of filing jointly and sev 2. common orde parties in both incident/accid e learned Tribunal concluded that th s suffered by him in a motor vehic 013 due to the rash and negligent d n No.DL-1LS-4860 (hereinafter ref being driven by respondent No.1, ed by respondent No.3. The 5 claim 23-year-old son; iii) 20-year-old son ld mother of the deceased-Mahende 2018 The above FAO-6033-201 ition No.151 of 2013/2014 date , wherein a sum of Rs.5,000/- has b t of damage done to the Scooty of The above said total compe rded to the appellants with interest iling the petitions till realisation. T severally liable to pay the said com Both the above appeals a order as both appeals arise from co both the appeals are same; and bot ccident dated 31.05.2013. For the s at the deceased had died due to ehicular accident that took place ent driving of the tempo bearing referred to as “the offending o.1, owned by respondent No.2 claimants are the: i) 45-year-old son; iv) 18-year-old son; and v) ender Singh. 2018 arises from the second ated 02.04.2014 filed by the as been awarded in equal share of the deceased in the accident mpensation of Rs.6,83,900/- has rest @ 6% per annum from the n. The respondents were held compensation amounts. als are being disposed of by this common Award dated 6.1.2015; both appeals arise from the same the sake of convenience, facts are 8 his 15; me re SUNENA 2025.01.16 14:57 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document being derived the first FAO 3. is that in com deceased has appellants is u assessed by th 4. perused the ca 5. appellants. A appellants be agricultural w Rs.40,000/- pe of the impugn of the decease failed to pro Rs.40,000/- Wages of an u learned Tribun month. Even that the decea ived from, and parties are being ref O No.6026-2018. The only argument advanc computing the impugned compe has not been correctly assessed. Ho is unable to elaborate as to how th y the learned Tribunal. I have heard learned coun e case files in great detail. I find no merit in the . A perusal of the file reveals t before the learned Tribunal th al work and running a milk dairy per month. However, it has been ugned Award that “...But no authent eased has been brought on the recor prove on record that the dece per month....”. Accordingly, kee an unskilled labourer as fixed by t ribunal had assessed income of th en nothing has been shown to this eceased had income as claimed. g referred to as per their status in anced on behalf of the appellants mpensation, the income of the However, learned counsel for the w the income has been incorrectly ounsel for the appellants and have the soul ground raised by the ls that it was the case of the l that the deceased was doing airy from which he was earning een categorically noted in Para 12 thentic proof regarding the income record. Hence, the petitioners have deceased was actually earning keeping in view the Minimum by the Haryana Government, the f the deceased as Rs.6,000/- per this Court, which would indicate 8 in nts he he tly ve he he ing ing 12 me ve ing um he er ate SUNENA 2025.01.16 14:57 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 6. (Ex.PW3/B), a was correctly number, dedu Tribunal has whereas keep “Sarla Verma Finder Doc ID rate of 10%. loss of estate, 15% instead o of consortium total compens 7. facts and circu (SC) SLP No.1 Vinish Jain & about 4 to 5 p such variation 8. Court has bee Director, Divis Further, as per the post-m ), age of the deceased was 58 yea ctly applied by the learned Tribuna deduction of 1/4th was correctly has incorrectly granted enhanced eeping in view the judgment of th rma & Others Vs. Delhi Transport c ID # 188882, future prospects oug %. It has been contended that nothi tate, however, future prospects hav ad of admissible 10%. Further, Rs.1 l tium; and Rs.25,000/- towards fune ensation ofRs.6,83,900/-. I find the said compensat circumstances of the present case. No.13931 of 2017 titled as “New n & Others”, has held that where 5 per cent only, it does not warran tion in compensation is within perm This above-said judgmen been followed by the Kerala Hig Divisional Controller Versus Alikut mortem report of the deceased years. Accordingly, multiplier of 9 bunal. As the claimants were 5 in tly made. However, the learned nced future prospects @ 15%; of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in ort Corporation & Another” Law ought to have been granted at the othing has been granted by way of have been granted at the rate of s.1 lakh was awarded towards loss funeral expenses. Thus, granting a nsation to be just and fair in the se. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in ew India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. ere difference in compensation is rrant interference by this Court as, ermissible limits. ment of the Hon’ble Supreme High Court in “The Managing likutty and Others” Law Finder 8 ed 9 in ed %; in aw he of of oss g a he in Vs. is as, SUNENA 2025.01.16 14:57 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Doc Id # 1885 below:- “18. It It is mo knockin accoun Tribuna discret there c precisio Others that if the cou 9. Court in “Re Others”, Law under:- “16. T awardi awarde Rs.10 17. In 619], t Court c 10. counsel for th 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 straitjacket formu ecision. In New India Assurance Co thers [(2018) 3 SCC 619], the Hon'b at if the fixation of compensation i e courts should normally not interfer 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 arded Rs.75,000/- towards loss of .10,000/- awarded towards pain and . In New India Assurance Co., Ltd v 9], the Hon'ble Supreme Court has urt can permit variation of plus or m No case law to the contrar or the appellants. Page 6 of 8 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 formula based on mathematical e Company Vs. Vinish Jain and on'ble Supreme Court has held ion is within permissible limits, erfere with such awards”. 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 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 8 SUNENA 2025.01.16 14:57 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 11. case is made find the com the facts and is a benefici Court, the sa source of pro near and dea every penny ‘State of Ha Controller K. that the am should neithe it should not facts of a giv considered v very ‘just’ co by the Hon’ interference Volume-II SC sympathy, ge determining Accordingly, in view of the ade out that merits interference w compensation awarded to the app and circumstances of the case. No eficial legislation yet, as cautione e same cannot be allowed to be f profit. Moreover, compensation a dear loved one cannot be made a nny has to be calculated and drawn f Haryana Vs. Jasbir Kaur’, (1999 r K.S.R.T.C. Vs. Mahadev Shetty’, amount of compensation should either be a bonanza nor a source of not be a pittance. Thus, all that h a given case is, that the compensat ed view, in the present case, the lea t’ compensation, which is in accord on’ble Supreme Court and there nce of this Court. In case of KSRTC II SCC 176, the Hon’ble Supreme Co y, generosity and benevolence cann ing the compensation. f the discussion above, I find no ce with the impugned Award. I appellants to be just and fair in No doubt Chapter-12 of the Act ioned by the Hon’ble Supreme be treated as a windfall or a n awarded upon the death of a de a market negotiation, where rawn. Hon’ble Supreme Court in 999) 1 SCC 90 and ‘Divisional tty’, (2003) 7 SCC 197, has held uld be just and reasonable, it e of profit but at the same time at has to be determined in the nsation accorded is ‘just’. In my learned Tribunal has awarded a ordance with the law laid down erefore, does not warrant the RTC Vs. Susamma Thomas 1994 e Court has held that misplaced cannot be the guiding factor for 8 SUNENA 2025.01.16 14:57 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 12. dismissed on g 13. 13.01.2025 Sunena Whether spea Whether repo In view of the above, bo on grounds of delay as well as on m Pending application(s) if an peaking/reasoned: Yes/No eportable: Yes/No , both the present appeals are n merits. if any also stand(s) disposed of. (Nidhi Gupta) Judge 8 are SUNENA 2025.01.16 14:57 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document