FAO-2063 IN THE HIG 117 Pooja and ot Surender Jag CORAM: H Present: - NIDHI GUP CM-6566-C 1. Limitation A delay of 75 2. 3. supported by filing the pre FAO-2063 1. enhancemen learned Mot Tribunal) vi bearing MA 63-2025 (O&M) -1- HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HA and others Versus Jaglan and another M: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDH Mr. Ravi Ambawata, Advocate I GUPTA, J. CII-2025 Prayer in this application fil tion Act, 1963 read with section 15 75 days in filing the accompanying Heard. For the reasons mentioned i rted by an affidavit, the same is allow present appeal is condoned. 2063-2025 The appellant-claimants have fi cement of the compensation amount of d Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, al) vide impugned Award dated 20 g MACP No. 67-2021 dated 05.03.20 D HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO-2063-2025 (O&M) Date of Decision:23.03.2026 .…Appellants ....Respondents NIDHI GUPTA ocate for the appellants. on filed under Section 5 of the 151 CPC is for condonation of nying appeal. ned in the application which is is allowed and delay of 75 days in ave filed the present appeal seeking ount of ₹21,66,000/- awarded by the nal, Narnaul (for short-‘the learned 20.09.2024, passed in petition .03.2021 filed under Section 166 of the n of h is s in king the rned ition 6 of RISHU KATARIA 2026.03.25 18:14 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. FAO-2063 the Motor V ₹21,66,000/ thereby gran claimants ar 52-year-old of accident. 2. basis of pl deceased-Ru vehicular acc driving of offending v Jaglan; and Tribunal aw annum from Both the res compensatio 3. compensatio on the lowe deceased w ₹25,000/- appreciate t assessed the submitted th 63-2025 (O&M) -2- otor Vehicles Act, 1988. Out of the to ,000/-; 10% was deducted towar y granting compensation of ₹19,49,40 nts are the: i) 20-year-old widow; ii) old father of deceased-Rupesh, who ident. Brief facts of the case are that of pleadings and evidence adduce Rupesh, had died due to injuries lar accident that took place on 29.11.2 g of car bearing registration No. DL ing vehicle’) owned and driven ; and insured by respondent No. al awarded compensation as above al from the date of filing the claim p respondents were held jointly an nsation. Learned counsel for the appe nsation by submitting that income of e lower side as only ₹10,000/- per was an agriculturist and Dairy per month. However, the lear iate the evidence adduced by the ed the income the deceased on th tted that deduction of 1/3rd has wrongl f the total awarded compensation of towards contributory negligence; 9,49,400/- to the appellants. The 03 ; ii) 50-year-old mother; and iii) , who was aged 22 years at the time re that the learned Tribunal on the dduced before it concluded that juries suffered by him in a motor 9.11.2020 due to rash and negligent DL-2C-BB-6248 (hereinafter ‘the ven by respondent No.1-Surender No. 2-Insurance Company. Ld. ove along with interest @ 7.5% per laim petition till actual realization. tly and severally liable to pay the appellants seeks enhancement of me of the deceased has been taken per month. It is submitted that Dairy Farmer; and was earning e learned Tribunal had failed to the appellant-claimants and had on the lower side. Further, it is rongly been made. Even multiplier n of nce; iii) time the that otor gent ‘the nder per t of ken that ning to had it is plier RISHU KATARIA 2026.03.25 18:14 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. FAO-2063 of 18 is wro learned Trib and parenta Accordingly Award dated enhanced. 4. have heard l merit in the claimants. 5. the appellan deceased wa which he w widow of t deceased wa stated that sh deceased hus 6. PW-2 has m 10+2 pass an not brought a has also com In this back 63-2025 (O&M) -3- wrongly applied by the learned Trib d Tribunal should have awarded ₹5,00 parental consortium have to be dingly, it is prayed that the present ap dated 20.09.2024 be modified; and th No other argument is raised o eard learned counsel and perused the in the submissions made by learne Perusal of the record shows th pellants before the learned Tribuna was an agriculturist and was als he was earning ₹25,000/- per month of the deceased while appearing ed was an ITI Diploma holder. Duri that she had not brought any record ed husband. Claimant No. 3/father of the has made contradictory statement to pass and had also done ITI. PW-2 had ought any record regarding education a so come on record that the deceased w background as education, avocation ed Tribunal. It is contended that the 5,00,000/- towards loss of estate; be awarded of ₹20,00,000/-. ent appeal may be allowed; and the and the amount of compensation be ised on behalf of the appellants. I sed the case file in detail. I find no learned counsel for the appellant- ws that it was the pleaded case of ribunal that prior to the accident as also doing dairy farming from month. However, claimant No. 1/ aring as PW-1 had deposed that During her cross-examination she ecord regarding ITI Diploma of her f the deceased while appearing as ent to the effect that deceased was 2 had further admitted that he had ation and income of the deceased. It ased was not an income tax payee. cation and income of the deceased t the tate; the n be I d no e of dent rom that she her g as was had It yee. ased RISHU KATARIA 2026.03.25 18:14 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. FAO-2063 remained un deceased as 7. time of accid the Tribuna prospects in in National (2017) 16 SC 8. deduction o being 52-yea dependent Tribunal had towards Los ₹15,000/- to total amount 9. compensatio shown to th Award. No d cautioned by be treated as State of Ha Doc ID # 6 Shetty’, (200 63-2025 (O&M) -4- ed unproved, the learned Tribunal ed as ₹10,000/- per month. I find no e Further, age of deceased was d f accident on the basis of Postmortem ibunal had correctly made an addi cts in conformity the law laid down b onal Insurance Company Limited v 6 SCC 680; and Tribunal had correc As there were 03 claimants, the tion of 1/3rd towards personal expen year-old father of the deceased co upon the deceased. Under the Co al had awarded an amount of ₹40,000 s Loss of Consortium; ₹15,000/- tow towards Loss of Estate. Thus, the mount of ₹19,49,400/- as compensatio From the above facts, it is cle nsation has been awarded to the ap to this Court that would merit inter . No doubt Chapter-12 of the Act is a ned by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, th ated as a windfall or a source of profit Haryana & Another Vs. Jasbir K # 64043 and Divisional Controller (2003) 7 SCC 197, has held that th ribunal had taken income of the d no error in the same. was determined as 22 years at the ortem Report Ex. P-6. Accordingly, addition of 40% towards future own by the Hon’ble Supreme Court ited vs. Pranay Sethi and others, correctly applied multiplier of 18. ts, the learned Tribunal had made a expenses. In fact, claimant No. 3 could not have been held to be the Conventional Heads, the learned ,000/- each to all the 03 claimants towards Funeral Expenses; and s, the learned Tribunal had granted nsation to the appellant-claimants. is clear that a very just and fair the appellants. Nothing has been it interference with the impugned ct is a beneficial legislation yet, as urt, the same cannot be allowed to profit. Hon’ble Supreme Court in ir Kaur & Others, Law Finder oller K.S.R.T.C. Vs. Mahadeva that the amount of compensation the t the gly, ture ourt rs, de a o. 3 o be rned ants and nted RISHU KATARIA 2026.03.25 18:14 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. FAO-2063 should be j source of pr General Ma Volume-II misplaced factor for de 10. that merits dismissed. 11. 23.03.2026 rishu 63-2025 (O&M) -5- be just and reasonable, it should n of profit but at the same time it sh l Manager, KSRTC Vs. Susamma II SCC 176, the Hon’ble Supre ced sympathy, generosity and bene for determining the compensation. In view of the discussion abov erits interference with the impug . Pending application(s) if any als 2026 Whether speaking/reasoned Whether Reportable ould neither be a bonanza nor a e it should not be a pittance. In mma Thomas & Others, 1994 Supreme Court has held that benevolence cannot be guiding above, I find no case is made out impugned Award. The appeal is any also stand(s) disposed of. ( NIDHI GUPTA ) JUDGE Yes/No Yes/No out l is RISHU KATARIA 2026.03.25 18:14 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment.