IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 222 Maya Devi & Another Visakha Singh @ Ravinder Singh & Others Maya Devi & Another Visakha Singh @ Ravinder Singh & Others CORAM: Present:- NIDHI GUPTA, J. FAO-6136-2018 enhancement of compensation of Accident Claims Tribunal, Gurdaspur Award dated 01.02.2018 passed in Claim Petition No.9 dated 01.05.2017 filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) daughter of deceased Om Parkash IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Maya Devi & Another Vs. Visakha Singh @ Ravinder Singh & Others *** Maya Devi & Another Vs. Visakha Singh @ Ravinder Singh & Others HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA Mr. Pawandeep Singh, Advocate for the appellants. Mr. Harjinder Singh, Advocate with Ms. Parnika Singla, Advocate for respondent No.3. *** NIDHI GUPTA, J. 2018 Present appeal has been filed by the claimants seeking enhancement of compensation of Rs.67,50,000/ Accident Claims Tribunal, Gurdaspur (for short, ‘the learned Tribunal’), Award dated 01.02.2018 passed in Claim Petition No.9 dated 01.05.2017 filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”). The 2 claimants are the mother and minor daughter of deceased Om Parkash. Page 1 of 9 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 21.05.2025 FAO-6136-2018(O&M) ...Appellant(s) ...Respondent(s) FAO-5777-2018(O&M) ...Appellant(s) ...Respondent(s) HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA Mr. Pawandeep Singh, Advocate Mr. Harjinder Singh, Advocate with Singla, Advocate Present appeal has been filed by the claimants seeking Rs.67,50,000/- awarded by Motor (for short, ‘the learned Tribunal’), vide Award dated 01.02.2018 passed in Claim Petition No.9 dated 01.05.2017 filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter . The 2 claimants are the mother and minor 9 Present appeal has been filed by the claimants seeking awarded by Motor vide Award dated 01.02.2018 passed in Claim Petition No.9 dated 01.05.2017 filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter . The 2 claimants are the mother and minor SUNENA 2025.05.22 18:33 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-5777-2018 enhancement of compensation of Rs. Tribunal, vide Award dated 01.02.2018 passed in Claim Petition No. dated 01.05.2017 filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”). The 2 claimants are the mother law and minor daughter of deceased common order as both arise out of the same accident dated 11.04.2017 claimants in bo Claim Petitions is 01.02.2018 both the appeals are dated 11.4.2017 2. the basis of pleadings and oral & documentary evidence adduced before it concluded that deceased Om Parkash and Asha Rani had died due to the injuries suffered 11.04.2017 registration No.PB vehicle”) by respondent No.1. The offending vehicle was owned by respondent No.2 and insured by 3. the appellants 018 Present appeal has been filed by the claimants seeking enhancement of compensation of Rs.8,70,000 Tribunal, vide Award dated 01.02.2018 passed in Claim Petition No. dated 01.05.2017 filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”). The 2 claimants are the mother and minor daughter of deceased Asha Rani Both the above appeals are being disposed of by this order as both arise out of the same accident dated 11.04.2017 claimants in both the appeals are same persons Claim Petitions is 01.02.2018; and deceased both the appeals are husband and wife who died in dated 11.4.2017. Brief facts of the case are that the learned Tribunal on the basis of pleadings and oral & documentary evidence adduced before it concluded that deceased Om Parkash and Asha Rani had died due to the injuries suffered by them in a motor vehicular accident that took place on due to the rash and negligent driving of tractor registration No.PB-06-E-5973 (hereinafter referred to as “the offending by respondent No.1. The offending vehicle was owned by respondent No.2 and insured by respondent No.3. In FAO-6136-2018, it is submitted by the appellants that compensation of Rs.67,50,000/ Present appeal has been filed by the claimants seeking 8,70,000/- awarded by the ld. Tribunal, vide Award dated 01.02.2018 passed in Claim Petition No.10 dated 01.05.2017 filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”). The 2 claimants are the mother-in- Asha Rani. appeals are being disposed of by this order as both arise out of the same accident dated 11.04.2017; th the appeals are same persons; date of Award in both ; and deceased Om Parkash and Asha Rani in who died in the same accident Brief facts of the case are that the learned Tribunal on the basis of pleadings and oral & documentary evidence adduced before it concluded that deceased Om Parkash and Asha Rani had died due to the by them in a motor vehicular accident that took place on due to the rash and negligent driving of tractor bearing (hereinafter referred to as “the offending by respondent No.1. The offending vehicle was owned by respondent No.3. it is submitted by learned counsel for that compensation of Rs.67,50,000/- awarded by the learned 9 Present appeal has been filed by the claimants seeking the ld. 10 dated 01.05.2017 filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - appeals are being disposed of by this ; date of Award in both in the same accident Brief facts of the case are that the learned Tribunal on the basis of pleadings and oral & documentary evidence adduced before it concluded that deceased Om Parkash and Asha Rani had died due to the by them in a motor vehicular accident that took place on bearing (hereinafter referred to as “the offending by respondent No.1. The offending vehicle was owned by learned counsel for awarded by the learned SUNENA 2025.05.22 18:33 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Tribunal is on t consortium and loss of estate. 4. submissions made on behalf of the appellants and submits that amount of Rs.15,000/- has been awarded by learned affection. 5. counsel for the appellants. case of the appellants before the learned Tribunal that th working as a Hava approximately Rs.42,000/ assessee. It was also stated by the appellants that the deceased was doing agricultural work in addition. was brought on record by the appellants. Accordingly, on evidence produced before it, learned Tribunal found that gross salary of the deceased was Rs.50,009/ of the deceased was proved to be 45 years from his Post learned Tribunal had correctly made an addition of 30% towards future prospects keeping in mind the fact that the deceased wa old and was a regular Government employee monthly income were two claimants, learned towards personal expenses. Tribunal is on the lower side as nothing has been awarded by way of loss of consortium and loss of estate. Learned counsel for the respondents opposes the submissions made on behalf of the appellants and submits that amount of has been awarded by learned Tribunal tow I find no merit in the above said contention counsel for the appellants. Perusal of record shows that it was the pleaded case of the appellants before the learned Tribunal that th working as a Havaldar in the Indian Army and was drawing a salary of approximately Rs.42,000/- per month and that he was Income Tax assessee. It was also stated by the appellants that the deceased was doing agricultural work in addition. However, no proof was brought on record by the appellants. Accordingly, on evidence produced before it, learned Tribunal found that gross salary of the deceased was Rs.50,009/-. After deduction of Income Tax, monthly income ceased was assessed to be Rs.46,129/ proved to be 45 years from his Post-Mortem Report (Ex.C2). As such, learned Tribunal had correctly made an addition of 30% towards future prospects keeping in mind the fact that the deceased wa old and was a regular Government employee monthly income to be Rs.59,967/- rounded off to Rs.60,000/ were two claimants, learned Tribunal correctly made deduction of 1/3 towards personal expenses. Multiplier of 14 was also correctly applied as he lower side as nothing has been awarded by way of loss of Learned counsel for the respondents opposes the submissions made on behalf of the appellants and submits that amount of Tribunal towards loss of love and I find no merit in the above said contention of learned Perusal of record shows that it was the pleaded case of the appellants before the learned Tribunal that the deceased was ldar in the Indian Army and was drawing a salary of per month and that he was Income Tax assessee. It was also stated by the appellants that the deceased was doing However, no proof of any agricultural income was brought on record by the appellants. Accordingly, on the basis of evidence produced before it, learned Tribunal found that gross salary of the . After deduction of Income Tax, monthly income Rs.46,129/-. Age of the deceased was Mortem Report (Ex.C2). As such, learned Tribunal had correctly made an addition of 30% towards future prospects keeping in mind the fact that the deceased was less than 50 years old and was a regular Government employee; and thereby calculating rounded off to Rs.60,000/-. As there Tribunal correctly made deduction of 1/3rd Multiplier of 14 was also correctly applied as 9 he lower side as nothing has been awarded by way of loss of Learned counsel for the respondents opposes the submissions made on behalf of the appellants and submits that amount of ards loss of love and learned Perusal of record shows that it was the pleaded e deceased was ldar in the Indian Army and was drawing a salary of per month and that he was Income Tax assessee. It was also stated by the appellants that the deceased was doing of any agricultural income the basis of evidence produced before it, learned Tribunal found that gross salary of the . After deduction of Income Tax, monthly income . Age of the deceased was Mortem Report (Ex.C2). As such, learned Tribunal had correctly made an addition of 30% towards future s less than 50 years and thereby calculating As there rd Multiplier of 14 was also correctly applied as SUNENA 2025.05.22 18:33 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document deceased was 45 years old. Accordingly, total dependency was calculated to be ₹67,20,000/ awarded Rs.15,000/ towards funeral expenses. The as follows: - Claimant No.1 Maya Devi (mother) Claimant No.2 (minor daughter) 6. awarded by way of awarded by way of loss of estate. However, it has been held by Supreme Court in Law Finder Doc ID # 977386 about 4 to 5 per cent only, it does not warrant interference by this Court as, such variation in compensation is within permissible limits. 7. Court has been followed by the Kerala High Court in “ Director, Divisional Controller Versus Alikutty and Others” Law Finder Doc Id # 1885188 below:- “18. It is to be borne in 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 discretion to fix the reasonable and just compensation, for which there cannot be any strai deceased was 45 years old. Accordingly, total dependency was calculated 67,20,000/– (Rs.60,000/- x 2/3 x 12 x 14 awarded Rs.15,000/- towards loss of love and affection and Rs. towards funeral expenses. The said compensation amount was apportioned Claimant No.1 Maya Devi (mother) Rs.17,50,000/ Claimant No.2 (minor daughter) Rs.50,00,000/ No doubt, an amount of only Rs.15,000/ awarded by way of loss of love and affection; and nothing has been awarded by way of loss of estate. However, it has been held by Supreme Court in “New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Vinish Jain & Othe Law Finder Doc ID # 977386, that where difference in compensation is about 4 to 5 per cent only, it does not warrant interference by this Court as, such variation in compensation is within permissible limits. This above-said judgment of the 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 23,2,2019. 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 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 its discretion to fix the reasonable and just compensation, for which there cannot be any straightjacket formula based on deceased was 45 years old. Accordingly, total dependency was calculated x 2/3 x 12 x 14). Learned Tribunal further towards loss of love and affection and Rs.15,000/- compensation amount was apportioned Rs.17,50,000/- along with interest Rs.50,00,000/- along with interest No doubt, an amount of only Rs.15,000/- has been loss of love and affection; and nothing has been awarded by way of loss of estate. However, it has been held by Hon’ble “New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Vinish Jain & Others” that where difference in compensation is about 4 to 5 per cent only, it does not warrant interference by this Court as, such variation in compensation is within permissible limits. said judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court has been followed 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 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 to do some guess work and also exercise its discretion to fix the reasonable and just compensation, for which tjacket formula based on 9 deceased was 45 years old. Accordingly, total dependency was calculated . Learned Tribunal further - compensation amount was apportioned has been loss of love and affection; and nothing has been Hon’ble rs” that where difference in compensation is about 4 to 5 per cent only, it does not warrant interference by this Court as, SUNENA 2025.05.22 18:33 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document mathematical precision. In Vs. Vinish the Hon'ble compensation is within permissible limits, the courts should normally not interfere with such awards”. 8. Court in “Reliance 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.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 9. Supreme Court in Rawat & Others” Civil Appeal Nos.2410 2251622 and “ (@ SLP (C) No.16767 of 2022) Giri Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd Finder Doc ID # 2070826, under the conventional heads; Rs.30,000/- has been awarded. 10. submits that deceased Asha Rani was a housewife. It is submitted that her income has been taken on the lower side as only Rs.5,000/ mathematical precision. In New India Assurance Company Vinish Jain and Others [(2018) 3 S Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that if the fixation of 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 to 5 percent.” Moreover, as per recent judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in “Shri Ram General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Bhagat Singh & Others” Civil Appeal Nos.2410-2412/2023 and “Mehmooda Bee & Others Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd.” (@ SLP (C) No.16767 of 2022) Law Finder Doc ID # 2070774 Giri Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd.” Civil Appeal No.6551 of 2022 Law Finder Doc ID # 2070826, a total sum of Rs.7 under the conventional heads; whereas in the present case, amount of has been awarded. In FAO-5777-2018, learned counsel for the appellants submits that deceased Asha Rani was a housewife. It is submitted that her income has been taken on the lower side as only Rs.5,000/ New India Assurance Company Jain and Others [(2018) 3 SCC 619], Supreme Court has held that if the fixation of compensation is within permissible limits, the courts should normally not interfere with such awards”. Above said view has been reiterated by the Kerala High General 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 or minus 4 to 5 percent.” per recent judgments of the Hon’ble Shri Ram General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Bhagat Singh 2412/2023 Law Finder Doc ID # Others Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd.” Law Finder Doc ID # 2070774 and “Bebi .” Civil Appeal No.6551 of 2022 Law total sum of Rs.70,000/- is to be granted whereas in the present case, amount of , learned counsel for the appellants submits that deceased Asha Rani was a housewife. It is submitted that her income has been taken on the lower side as only Rs.5,000/- per month. 9 , learned counsel for the appellants submits that deceased Asha Rani was a housewife. It is submitted that her per month. SUNENA 2025.05.22 18:33 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Learned counsel relies upon judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Kumar Pandey & Others Vs. Girish Pandey & Another” Civil Appeal No.2512 of 2024 decided on 16.02.2024, submit that it has been held in the said judgment that income of the housewife who is a homemaker, has to be taken as per the “ admissible to a daily wager...under the Minimum Wages Act counsel submits that in the pres (Annexure A- Rs.7,800/-. Thus, Tribunal is on the lower side as income of the deceased has been only Rs.5,000/ 11. submits that there is no error in the notion learned Tribunal. It is submitted that a very fair and just compensation has been awarded t be dismissed. 12. submissions of the parties as also perused the file. Whereupon, I merit in the submission of pleaded case of the appellants before the learned Tribunal that the deceased was doing work of stitching and tailoring and was earning Rs.10,000/- income, learned Tribunal had ass as Rs.5,000/ Learned counsel relies upon judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Kumar Pandey & Others Vs. Girish Pandey & Another” Civil Appeal No.2512 of 2024 decided on 16.02.2024, Law Finde submit that it has been held in the said judgment that income of the housewife who is a homemaker, has to be taken as per the “ admissible to a daily wager...under the Minimum Wages Act counsel submits that in the present case, as per the relevant Notification -2), income of the deceased ought to have been taken as Thus, compensation of Rs.8,70,000/ Tribunal is on the lower side as income of the deceased has been only Rs.5,000/- per month. Ld. Counsel for the respondent Insurance Company submits that there is no error in the notion learned Tribunal. It is submitted that a very fair and just compensation has been awarded to the appellants. It is accordingly prayed that the appeals be dismissed. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions of the parties as also perused the file. Whereupon, I merit in the submission of ld. Counsel for the pleaded case of the appellants before the learned Tribunal that the deceased was doing work of stitching and tailoring and was earning per month. As appellants were unable to prove the said , learned Tribunal had assessed notional income of the deceased as Rs.5,000/- per month. In doing so, learned Tribunal reli Learned counsel relies upon judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in “Arvind Kumar Pandey & Others Vs. Girish Pandey & Another” Civil Appeal Law Finder Doc ID # 2563908, to submit that it has been held in the said judgment that income of the housewife who is a homemaker, has to be taken as per the “wages admissible to a daily wager...under the Minimum Wages Act”. Learned ent case, as per the relevant Notification , income of the deceased ought to have been taken as about compensation of Rs.8,70,000/- awarded by the learned Tribunal is on the lower side as income of the deceased has been taken as Ld. Counsel for the respondent Insurance Company submits that there is no error in the notional income as assessed by the learned Tribunal. It is submitted that a very fair and just compensation has . It is accordingly prayed that the appeals have given my thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions of the parties as also perused the file. Whereupon, I find no ld. Counsel for the appellants. It was the pleaded case of the appellants before the learned Tribunal that the deceased was doing work of stitching and tailoring and was earning per month. As appellants were unable to prove the said essed notional income of the deceased doing so, learned Tribunal relied upon 9 “Arvind Kumar Pandey & Others Vs. Girish Pandey & Another” Civil Appeal to submit that it has been held in the said judgment that income of the wages ”. Learned ent case, as per the relevant Notification about the learned taken as Ld. Counsel for the respondent Insurance Company income as assessed by the learned Tribunal. It is submitted that a very fair and just compensation has . It is accordingly prayed that the appeals SUNENA 2025.05.22 18:33 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document judgment of this Court in Finder Doc ID # that income of household lady be assessed keeping in view price index of 2012. Learned Tribunal had accordingly taken income of the present deceased Asha Rani as Rs.5,000/ index at the relevant in Neetu (supra), consideration only to assess compensation nothing by way of future prospects and made no deduction toward personal expenses. indicate any error in the said assessment and/or distinguish the said judgment. 13. judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in However, the said case is distinguishable on facts inasmuch as in the said case, the Tribunal had awarded a lump Rs.2,50,000/- lakhs by the Hon’ble Supreme Court determination of the notional income of the deceased housewife therein; and a general and random observation had been made by the Supreme Court be determined on the basis of the relevant Minimum Wages Notification. Needless to say, there Hon’ble Apex judgment of this Court in “Neetu & Others Vs. Jaswant & Others” Law Finder Doc ID # 749493, 2016(2) RCR (Civil) 486, that income of household lady be assessed keeping in view price index of 2012. Learned Tribunal had accordingly taken income of the present deceased Asha Rani as Rs.5,000/- per month index at the relevant time. In further compliance with the said judgment Neetu (supra), as notional income of the deceased had been taken into consideration only to assess compensation nothing by way of future prospects and made no deduction toward personal expenses. Learned counsel for the appellants has failed to indicate any error in the said assessment and/or distinguish the said Ld. Counsel for the appellants has relied upon judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Arvind Kumar However, the said case is distinguishable on facts inasmuch as in the said case, the Tribunal had awarded a lump - to the claimants therein, which was then enhanced to Rs.6 lakhs by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. As such, there was no determination of the notional income of the deceased housewife therein; and a general and random observation had been made by the Supreme Court to the effect that income of deceased homemaker should be determined on the basis of the relevant Minimum Wages Notification. Needless to say, there can be no dispute with Apex Court. However, in the present case, it is “Neetu & Others Vs. Jaswant & Others” Law 2016(2) RCR (Civil) 486, in which it has been held that income of household lady be assessed keeping in view price index of 2012. Learned Tribunal had accordingly taken income of the present per month on the basis of the price time. In further compliance with the said judgment as notional income of the deceased had been taken into consideration only to assess compensation, learned Tribunal awarded nothing by way of future prospects and made no deduction towards Learned counsel for the appellants has failed to indicate any error in the said assessment and/or distinguish the said Ld. Counsel for the appellants has relied upon Arvind Kumar Pandey (supra). However, the said case is distinguishable on facts inasmuch as in the said case, the Tribunal had awarded a lump-sum compensation of to the claimants therein, which was then enhanced to Rs.6 . As such, there was no real or actual determination of the notional income of the deceased housewife therein; and a general and random observation had been made by the Hon’ble to the effect that income of deceased homemaker should be determined on the basis of the relevant Minimum Wages Notification. can be no dispute with the said observation of the However, in the present case, it is admitted by 9 SUNENA 2025.05.22 18:33 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document learned counsel for the appellants that no such notification was produced by the appellants before the learned Tribunal. contended by learned counsel for the appellants that Court to take judicial not Court can only take judicial notice of the before it. In view of the said admitted facts, notional income of the deceased was correctly assessed as Rs.5,000/ 14. be 42 years Accordingly, multiplier of 14 was correctly applied was calculated to be Rs.8,40,000/ further awarded Rs.15,000/ estate; and Rs.15,000/ compensation of Rs.8,70,000/ Claimant No.1 Maya Devi (moth in-law) Claimant No.2 (minor daughter) 15. compensation has been awarded to the appellants. discussion above, I find no case is made out with the impugned Award appellants to be just and fair in the facts and circumstances of the case. No doubt Chapter by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the same cannot be allowed to be treated learned counsel for the appellants that no such notification was produced by the appellants before the learned Tribunal. contended by learned counsel for the appellants that Court to take judicial notice of the relevant Notification. Court can only take judicial notice of the In view of the said admitted facts, notional income of the deceased was correctly assessed as Rs.5,000/ Further, age of deceased Asha Rani was determined to be 42 years as stated by claimant No.1 in her affidavit (Ex.CW1/A) Accordingly, multiplier of 14 was correctly applied was calculated to be Rs.8,40,000/- (Rs.5,000/ further awarded Rs.15,000/- towards loss of love & affection and loss of estate; and Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenses compensation of Rs.8,70,000/-, which was apportioned as follows: Claimant No.1 Maya Devi (mother- Rs.70,000/ Claimant No.2 (minor daughter) Rs.8,00,000/ From the above facts, it is clear that a just and fair compensation has been awarded to the appellants. discussion above, I find no case is made out with the impugned Awards. I find the compensation to be 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 learned counsel for the appellants that no such notification was produced by the appellants before the learned Tribunal. At this stage, it has been contended by learned counsel for the appellants that it was upon the relevant Notification. However, the Court can only take judicial notice of the facts produced and pleaded In view of the said admitted facts, notional income of the deceased was correctly assessed as Rs.5,000/- per month. Further, age of deceased Asha Rani was determined to as stated by claimant No.1 in her affidavit (Ex.CW1/A). Accordingly, multiplier of 14 was correctly applied; and total dependency (Rs.5,000/- x 12 x 14). Learned Tribunal towards loss of love & affection and loss of towards funeral expenses; thereby granting total , which was apportioned as follows:- Rs.70,000/- along with interest Rs.8,00,000/- along with interest From the above facts, it is clear that a just and fair compensation has been awarded to the appellants. In view of the discussion above, I find no case is made out which merits interference . I find the compensation awarded to the to be just and fair in the facts and circumstances of the case. 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 9 Further, age of deceased Asha Rani was determined to . ; and total dependency arned Tribunal towards loss of love & affection and loss of ; thereby granting total SUNENA 2025.05.22 18:33 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document as a windfall or a source of profit. Hon’bl Haryana & Another and ‘Divisional Controller K.S.R.T.C. Vs. Mahadev 197, has held that the amount of compensation should be just and reasonable, it shoul the same time it should not be a pittance. In my considered view, in the present case, the learned Tribunal has awarded a ‘just’ compensation and therefore, does not warrant the interference of this Cou of “General Manager, Volume-II SCC 176, sympathy, generosity and benevolence cannot be the guiding factor for determining the compensation. 16. 17. 21.05.2025 Sunena Whether speaking/reasoned: Whether reportable: as a windfall or a source of profit. Hon’ble Supreme Court in ‘ & Another Vs. Jasbir Kaur & Others ‘Divisional Controller K.S.R.T.C. Vs. Mahadev 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 my considered view, in the present case, the learned Tribunal has awarded a ‘just’ compensation and therefore, does not warrant the interference of this Cou “General Manager, KSRTC Vs. Susamma Thomas 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, both the appeals are Pending application(s) if any also stand(s) disposed of. Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether reportable: Yes/No e Supreme Court in ‘State of & 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 d neither be a bonanza nor a source of profit but at the same time it should not be a pittance. In my considered view, in the present case, the learned Tribunal has awarded a ‘just’ compensation, and therefore, does not warrant the interference of this Court. In the case KSRTC Vs. Susamma Thomas & Others” 1994 the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that misplaced sympathy, generosity and benevolence cannot be the guiding factor for iew of the above, both the appeals are dismissed. Pending application(s) if any also stand(s) disposed of. (Nidhi Gupta) Judge 9 SUNENA 2025.05.22 18:33 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document