IN THE HI 246 Smt. Neeraj D Suresh Kumar CORAM: Present:- NIDHI GUPTA, enhancement Accident Claim Tribunal”) vide Case No.75 of 166/140 of th Act”). The afo @ 9% per an deposit of th severally liab claimants/app Kumar. E HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HA aj Devi & Others Vs. mar & Others HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE NID Mr. Shivam Sharma, Advoc Mr. Rajbir Singh, Advocate for the appellants. Ms. Suman Jain, Advocate Mr. Shubham Jain, Advocat for respondent No.3. *** PTA, J. Present appeal has been fi ent of compensation of Rs.29,71,2 Claims Tribunal, Karnal (hereinafter vide Award dated 12.04.2017 pas 5 of 2016 filed by the claimants/app f the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (he aforesaid compensation has been r annum from the date of filing t f the same. All the three respond liable to pay the amount o /appellants are the widow and pare D HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO-9-2018 (O&M) Date of decision: 21.01.2025 ...Appellant(s) ...Respondent(s) NIDHI GUPTA vocate for ate ate ocate en filed by the claimants seeking 71,200/- awarded by the Motor fter referred to as “the learned passed in claim petition MACP appellants herein under Section (hereinafter referred to as “the een awarded along with interest ng the claim petition till actual ondents were held jointly and t of compensation. The 3 parents of the deceased-Sanjeev 5 SUNENA 2025.01.24 17:10 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 2. the basis of pl deceased-Sanj motor vehicul and negligent (hereinafter re The offending respondent No 3.1 consortium gr 3.2 various heads 4. No.3/Insuranc appellants and fair manner an 5. 6. perused the ca 7. oral and docu learned Tribun the injuries su Brief facts of the case are of pleadings and evidence adduced Sanjeev Kumar had died due to the icular accident that took place on gent driving of the truck bearing r er referred to as “the offending ve ding vehicle was owned by respo t No.3. Learned counsel for the a granted to the appellants deserve It is further submitted that ads is on the lower side and deserve Per contra, learned cou rance Company opposes the pray and submits that compensation ha er and therefore, prays for dismissal No other argument is raise I have heard learned co e case file in great detail. Perusal of record of the cas documentary evidence brought on ibunal returned the finding that th es suffered by him in the motor v are that the learned Tribunal on ced before it concluded that the the injuries suffered by him in a on 04.03.2016 due to the rash ing registration No.HP-12B-9657 g vehicle”) by respondent No.1. spondent No.2 and insured by he appellants submits that the erves to be enhanced. that the amounts granted under serves to be enhanced. counsel for the respondent prayer made on behalf of the n has been granted in a just and issal of the present appeal. aised on behalf of the parties. counsel for the parties and e case shows that on the basis of t on record by the parties, the t the deceased had died due to or vehicular accident that took 5 SUNENA 2025.01.24 17:10 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document place on 04.03 vehicle by resp and insured b liable to pay th 8.1. learned Tribun Pal Engineers, and getting Rs claimants i.e. (Ex.P11), salar Form-16 (Ex.P be Rs.13,200/ 8.2 years on the b of 50% were a of the decease It may be po Supreme Cour have been add 8.3 dependents. T at Rs.13,200/ be Rs.1,58,400 4.03.2016 due to the rash and negli respondent No.1 and the same was d by respondent No.3. The respon ay the awarded compensation, joint It was the case of the app ibunal that the deceased was work ers, SCO 133, Block-A, MI Plaza, Jh g Rs.14,250/- per month. On the b i.e. appointment letter (Ex.P10), c salary slip (Ex.P6), certificate issue Ex.P8), the learned Tribunal took th 00/- per month. The age of the deceased he basis of Post-Mortem Report (E ere added to the income of the dec eased was calculated as Rs.19,800/ pointed out that as per the law ourt, future prospects could have b added at the excessive rate of 50%. Deduction of 1/3rd was cor ts. Thus, monthly dependency in fa 00/- (Rs.19,800/- - Rs.6,600/-). Ann ,400/- (Rs.13,200/- x 12). Page 3 of 5 egligent driving of the offending was owned by respondent No.2 pondents were accordingly held jointly and severally. appellants/claimants before the orking as Service Engineer with a, Jharmari, Baddi, District Solan he basis of evidence led by the 0), copy of attendance register ssued by Pal Engineers (Ex.P7), k the income of the deceased to ased was determined to be 25 (Ex.P13); and future prospects deceased; and monthly income 800/- (Rs.13,200/- + Rs.6,600/-). law laid down by the Hon’ble ve been added @ 40%, however, 50%. s correctly made as there were 3 in favour of claimants is arrived Annual dependency would thus 5 SUNENA 2025.01.24 17:10 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 8.4 Thus, 28,51,20 8.5 towards loss o 8.6 expenses. 8.7 9. consortium gr claimants was argument to Supreme Cour Rawat & Othe & Others Vs. and “Bebi Gir 2022, a total s heads. 10. compensation has been sho compensation discussion abo with the imp Learned Tribunal correctly 1,200/- (Rs.1,58,400/- x 18). Appellant No.1/widow w ss of consortium. Rs.20,000/- was also Thus, total compensation c It has been argued on be granted to the appellants is on th was entitled to consortium of Rs. to be misplaced. As per recent Court in “Shri Ram General Insuran thers” Civil Appeal Nos.2410-2412 Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd.” (@ i Giri Vs. National Insurance Co. Lt tal sum of Rs.77,000/- is to be gran 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 ctly applied the multiplier of 18. was also granted Rs.1 lakh so granted towards funeral ion comes to Rs.29,71,200/-. n behalf of the appellants that n the lower side as each of the Rs.1 lakh each. I find the said ent judgments of the Hon’ble urance Co. Ltd. Vs. Bhagat Singh 412/2023 and “Mehmooda Bee (@ SLP (C) No.16767 of 2022) o. Ltd.” Civil Appeal No.6551 of granted under the conventional 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 5 SUNENA 2025.01.24 17:10 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 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 Hon’ble Supre of this Court. SCC 176, the generosity and the compensa 11. 12. 21.01.2025 Sunena Whether spea Whether repo 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 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 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 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 5 SUNENA 2025.01.24 17:10 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document