IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 231 Yogendra Kumar Nand Kumar CORAM: Present:- NIDHI GUPTA, J. of the deceased Rs.26,54,400/ (hereinafter referred to as “the Tribunal”), vide Award dated passed in MACT Case No. 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”). sole claimant question, the wife and daughter of the appellant had to which they had died. A separate was filed by the appellant The appellant was awarded Rs.3 lakh for the death of his daughter. above-said Claim Petitions were disposed of by this common Awar IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Yogendra Kumar Vs. Nand Kumar & Others HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA Ms. Shikha Yadav, Advocate Mr. Rahul Deswal, Advocate for the appellant. *** NIDHI GUPTA, J. Present appeal has been filed by the claimant of the deceased Rinki, seeking enhancement of compensation of 26,54,400/- awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, (hereinafter referred to as “the Tribunal”), vide Award dated MACT Case No.636 dated 01.10.2021 of the Motor Vehicles Act (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”). sole claimant is the husband of the deceased question, the wife and daughter of the appellant had to which they had died. A separate Claim Petition No.637 dated 01.10.2021 by the appellant in respect of his deceased The appellant was awarded Rs.3 lakh for the death of his daughter. said Claim Petitions were disposed of by this common Awar IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO-1290-2025(O&M) Date of decision: 16.05.2025 ...Appellant(s) ...Respondent(s) HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA , Advocate for Mr. Rahul Deswal, Advocate Present appeal has been filed by the claimant/husband seeking enhancement of compensation of awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Karnal (hereinafter referred to as “the Tribunal”), vide Award dated 12.12.2024 dated 01.10.2021 filed under Sections 166 & of the Motor Vehicles Act (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”). The of the deceased Rinki. In the accident in question, the wife and daughter of the appellant had suffered injuries due Claim Petition No.637 dated 01.10.2021 deceased four year old daughter. The appellant was awarded Rs.3 lakh for the death of his daughter. Both the said Claim Petitions were disposed of by this common Award dated 5 /husband seeking enhancement of compensation of Karnal 12.12.2024 & The In the accident in suffered injuries due Claim Petition No.637 dated 01.10.2021 daughter. Both the d dated SUNENA 2025.05.16 17:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 12.12.2024. compensation awarded on account of death of wife of the appellant. above said annum. 2. the basis of pleading and oral & documentary evidence adduced before it concluded that deceased injuries suffered by 22.08.2021 at about bearing registration No. offending vehicle”) by respondent No.1 by respondent No.2 and i 3. appellant assails the impugned amount of Rs.26,54,400/ 1/3rd share i.e. Rs.8,84,800/ amount has been directed to be disbursed to the parents of the deceased Rinki. It is contended that this could not have been done given the fact that no Claim Petition has been filed by th the learned Tribunal has placed reliance upon judgment of this Court in FAO-7409-2015 titled as “Kamal Verma Vs. Jai Nand & Others” decided on 11.03.2019. However, challenge in the present appeal is only qua the compensation awarded on account of death of wife of the appellant. compensation was awarded along with interest @ 9% per Brief facts of the case are that the learned Tribunal on the basis of pleading and oral & documentary evidence adduced before it concluded that deceased Rinki/wife of the appellant injuries suffered by her in a motor vehicular accident at about 6am due to the rash and negligent driving of bearing registration No.HR-45-B-8128 (hereinafter referred to as “the offending vehicle”) by respondent No.1. The offending vehicle was owned by respondent No.2 and insured by respondent No.3 The only ground on which the learned counsel for the appellant assails the impugned Award is that amount of Rs.26,54,400/-, the appellant has been held entitled for only share i.e. Rs.8,84,800/-. It is submitted that the remaining 2/3 amount has been directed to be disbursed to the parents of the deceased . It is contended that this could not have been done given the fact that no Claim Petition has been filed by the parents of the deceased. the learned Tribunal has placed reliance upon judgment of this Court in 2015 titled as “Kamal Verma Vs. Jai Nand & Others” decided on However, learned Tribunal has wrongly relied However, challenge in the present appeal is only qua the compensation awarded on account of death of wife of the appellant. The compensation was awarded along with interest @ 9% per Brief facts of the case are that the learned Tribunal on the basis of pleading and oral & documentary evidence adduced before it Rinki/wife of the appellant had died due to the in a motor vehicular accident that took place on due to the rash and negligent driving of truck (hereinafter referred to as “the . The offending vehicle was owned nsured by respondent No.3. The only ground on which the learned counsel for the Award is that out of the total compensation , the appellant has been held entitled for only . It is submitted that the remaining 2/3rd amount has been directed to be disbursed to the parents of the deceased . It is contended that this could not have been done given the fact that e parents of the deceased. In doing so, the learned Tribunal has placed reliance upon judgment of this Court in 2015 titled as “Kamal Verma Vs. Jai Nand & Others” decided on has wrongly relied upon the said 5 However, challenge in the present appeal is only qua the The compensation was awarded along with interest @ 9% per Brief facts of the case are that the learned Tribunal on the basis of pleading and oral & documentary evidence adduced before it had died due to the that took place on truck (hereinafter referred to as “the . The offending vehicle was owned The only ground on which the learned counsel for the of the total compensation , the appellant has been held entitled for only rd amount has been directed to be disbursed to the parents of the deceased . It is contended that this could not have been done given the fact that doing so, the learned Tribunal has placed reliance upon judgment of this Court in 2015 titled as “Kamal Verma Vs. Jai Nand & Others” decided on upon the said SUNENA 2025.05.16 17:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document judgment as the same is distinguishable on facts inasmuch as in the said case, the marriage between the parties was only of about one week; whereas in the present case, the appellant was married to the deceased for about 5 years. It is accordingly prayed t modified and the entire compensation amount of Rs.26,54,400/ released to the appellant. 4. 5. perused the case file 6. respect of deceased Rinki Sr. No. Head i) Monthly notional income ii) Multiplicand (annualised by multiplier 12) iii) 40% of (i) to be added as future prospects of annual income iv) Multiplier (deceased between 26 to 30 years) as per Sarla Verma’s ruling v) Loss of dependency 17) vi Loss of estate vii) Funeral expenses viii) Consortium for claimants Total 7. judgment as the same is distinguishable on facts inasmuch as in the said case, the marriage between the parties was only of about one week; whereas in the present case, the appellant was married to the deceased for about 5 years. It is accordingly prayed t modified and the entire compensation amount of Rs.26,54,400/ released to the appellant. No other argument is made on behalf of the I have heard learned counsel for the d the case file in great detail. The learned Tribunal had awarded compensation in respect of deceased Rinki/wife of the appellant in following manner: Head Monthly notional income Multiplicand (annualised by multiplier 12) 40% of (i) to be added as future prospects of annual income Multiplier (deceased between 26 to 30 years) as per Sarla Verma’s ruling Loss of dependency (Rs.1,51,200/- Loss of estate Funeral expenses Consortium for claimants Total The learned Tribunal had further reasoned as follows: “31. However, since during the arguments it was informed by learned counsel for claimant that parents of deceased Rinki are also alive but they have not been made claimants in this judgment as the same is distinguishable on facts inasmuch as in the said case, the marriage between the parties was only of about one week; whereas in the present case, the appellant was married to the deceased for about 5 years. It is accordingly prayed that the impugned Award be modified and the entire compensation amount of Rs.26,54,400/- be No other argument is made on behalf of the appellant. learned counsel for the appellant and The learned Tribunal had awarded compensation in /wife of the appellant in following manner:- Amount Rs.9,000/- Multiplicand (annualised by Rs.9,000/- x 12 = Rs.1,08,000/- 40% of (i) to be added as future Rs.1,08,000/- + Rs.43,200/- = Rs.1,51,200/- Multiplier (deceased between 26 to 30 years) as per Sarla Verma’s ruling 17 x Rs.25,70,400/- Rs.18,000/- Rs.18,000/- Rs.48,000/- Rs.26,54,400/- The learned Tribunal had further reasoned as follows:- “31. However, since during the arguments it was informed by learned counsel for claimant that parents of deceased Rinki have not been made claimants in this 5 judgment as the same is distinguishable on facts inasmuch as in the said case, the marriage between the parties was only of about one week; whereas in the present case, the appellant was married to the deceased for hat the impugned Award be be and The learned Tribunal had awarded compensation in x 12 = - SUNENA 2025.05.16 17:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 8. distinguish the above submitting that the length of marriage in both the cases was different. However, the said argument of the appellant is misconceived Court query, it that parents of the deceased of section 166 of the compensation. Parents of the deceased are very much legal representatives as per law. Hon’ble Supreme Khushwaha & Others” Law finder doc ID # 2705152 held that: – case. It is appropriate to note that compensation cannot be a bonanza, source of profit or largesses. Equally true is that the Tribunal has an obligation to assess just and reasonable compensation. Deceased in this case was only aged 30 years and was having only one daughter who has already expired and claimant is already in service. In the given circumstances, loss of dependency is required to be assessed in the light of the present case. Claimant/husband is, therefore, entitled only for 1/3rd share of the compensation amount 25,54,400/- i.e ₹8,84,800/- Reference in this regard is made on United India Insurance Company Limited vs. Kamal Verma & Ors., FAO no.7409 of 2015 (P&H). Learned counsel for the appellant has sought to distinguish the above-said judgment in Kamal Verma (Supra) submitting that the length of marriage in both the cases was different. the said argument of the appellant is misconceived , it has not been denied by learned counsel for the appellant that parents of the deceased in Supra case were alive of section 166 of the Act, ‘Legal representatives’ compensation. Parents of the deceased are very much legal representatives as per law. Reference may be made to j Hon’ble Supreme Court in “Sadhana Tomar & Others Vs. Ashok Khushwaha & Others” Law finder doc ID # 2705152 case. It is appropriate to note that compensation cannot be a ce of profit or largesses. Equally true is that the Tribunal has an obligation to assess just and reasonable compensation. Deceased in this case was only aged 30 years and was having only one daughter who has already expired ice. In the given circumstances, loss of dependency is required to be assessed in the light of the present case. Claimant/husband is, therefore, entitled only for 1/3rd share of the compensation amount i.e. 1/3rd of Reference in this regard is made United India Insurance Company Limited vs. Kamal Verma & Ors., FAO no.7409 of 2015 (P&H).” Learned counsel for the appellant has sought to Kamal Verma (Supra) on facts by submitting that the length of marriage in both the cases was different. the said argument of the appellant is misconceived. On a direct has not been denied by learned counsel for the appellant in Supra case were alive. As per the provision ct, ‘Legal representatives’ are entitled to compensation. Parents of the deceased are very much legal may be made to judgment of the “Sadhana Tomar & Others Vs. Ashok Khushwaha & Others” Law finder doc ID # 2705152, wherein it has been 5 SUNENA 2025.05.16 17:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 9. as follows:- 10. Moreover, it may also be pointed out that Kamal Verma (Supra) order dated 1.7.2019 passed in SLP (C) nos. 12392 ‘Kamal Verma versus United India Insurance Company Limited and others. 11. 12. 16.05.2025 Sunena Whether speaking/reasoned: Whether reportable: “B. Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 Section 166 representative" - Court held that father and younger sister of deceased are legal representatives eligible for compensation, even if not financially independent interpretation to ensure just and fair compensation. Further, relevant part of Para 13 of the afore “13…This Court in Gujarat SRTC v. Ramanbhai Prabhatbhai [(1987) 3 SCC 234], observed that a legal one, who suffers on account of death of a person due to a motor vehicle accident and need not necessarily be a wife, husband, parent or child.” As such, I find no error in the impugned it may also be pointed out that Kamal Verma (Supra) has been upheld by the Hon’ble Supreme Court vide order dated 1.7.2019 passed in SLP (C) nos. 12392 Kamal Verma versus United India Insurance Company Limited and others. 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 Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 Section 166 - Definition of "legal Court held that father and younger sister of deceased are legal representatives eligible for compensation, even if not financially independent - MV Act calls for a liberal interpretation to ensure just and fair compensation. Further, relevant part of Para 13 of the afore-said judgment is Gujarat SRTC v. Ramanbhai Prabhatbhai , observed that a legal representative is ers on account of death of a person due to a motor vehicle accident and need not necessarily be a wife, As such, I find no error in the impugned Award. it may also be pointed out that the above-said judgment in by the Hon’ble Supreme Court vide order dated 1.7.2019 passed in SLP (C) nos. 12392–12393 of 2019 titled as Kamal Verma versus United India Insurance Company Limited and others.’ In view of the above, present appeal is dismissed. Pending application(s) if any also stand(s) disposed of. (Nidhi Gupta) Judge 5 SUNENA 2025.05.16 17:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document