FAO-1295 v. Jaspal Singh

Judgment

1. Prayer in this application fil on filed under Section 5 of the Limitation A tion Act, 1963is for condonation of d on of delay of 43 days in filing the accompanyin panying appeal.

2. For the reasons mentioned i h is ned in the application which is supported by rted by an affidavit, the same is allow s in is allowed and delay of 43 days in filing the pre the present appeal is condoned. FAO-1295 1295-2025

1. The appellant-claimants have fi ave filed the present appeal seeking enhancemen cement of the compensation amount of ount of ₹17,32,500/- awarded by the learned Mot d Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, N nal, Narnaul (for short-‘the learned Tribunal) vi al) vide impugned Award dated 26 ted 26.09.2024, passed in petition bearing MAC g MACP No. 265-2020 dated 11.09.20 6 of .09.2020 filed under Section 166 of the Motor V otor Vehicles Act, 1988. The 06 clai claimants are the: i) 50-year-old RISHU KATARIA 2026.02.26 19:59 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. FAO-1295 95-2025 (O&M) -2- widow; ii) 2 ; ii) 25-year-old son; iii) 28-year- -old married daughter; iv) 30- year-old ma ld married daughter; v) 77-year-old old mother; and vi) 79-year-old father of dec of deceased-Narender Singh, who wa e of ho was 46-47 years old at time of accident.

2. Brief facts of the case are that re that the learned Tribunal on the basis of pl of pleadings and evidence adduce dduced before it concluded that deceased-Na Narender Singh, had died in a m in a motor vehicular accident that took place o lace on 28.07.2020due to rash and neg nd negligent driving of Milk Tanker bearing reg g registration No. PB-02-BR-9813 9813 (hereinafter ‘the offending vehicle’) by by respondent No.1-Jaspal Singh Singh; owned by respondent No. 2- Gurdeep Sin ep Singh; and insured by respondent N dent No. 3-Insurance Company. Ld. Tribunal aw al awarded compensation as above al ove along with interest @ 7.5% per annum from from the date of filing the claim peti m petition till actual realization. All the responde spondents were held liable to pay t pay the compensation jointly and severally.

3. The present appeal is of the yea o be the year 2025 and notice is yet to be issued in th in the same. Since, the inception of t in tion of the appeal none has put in appearance o rance on behalf of the appellants. To Today also, even in the second round of hea of hearing, none has put in appearanc . earance on behalf of the appellants. Accordingly dingly, in view of the fact that the am o be he amount of compensation is to be determined ined as per the structured formula ’ble rmula laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Co me Court in Sarla Verma vs. Delhi T elhi Transport Corporation, Law Finder Doc r Doc Id # 188882 and National Insu vs. l Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Set y Sethi and others, (2017) 16 SCC 6 SCC 680; therefore, the present appeal is bei

l is being disposed of, in accordance w with law. RISHU KATARIA 2026.02.26 19:59 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. FAO-1295 95-2025 (O&M) -3-

4. Perusal of the present Ground rounds of Appeal shows that the appellant-cla claimants have sought enhancem ancement of compensation on the ground that d that the learned Tribunal while pass le passing the impugned Award has not apprecia preciated the evidence on record. It i It is asserted that Income of the deceased has ed has been assessed on the lower si wer side. Learned Tribunal has not considered th ered the interest on the loss of consor consortium. The amount so awarded under the c the conventional heads deserves en e of ves enhancement; and the rate of interest upon t upon the awarded amount of comp compensation should be enhanced from 7.5% t

7.5% to 12% per annum. It is accord ccordingly, prayed that the present appeal may l may be accepted and the amount of unt of compensation awarded to the claimants de nts deserves to be enhanced.

5. I have gone through the case fil d no ase file in minute detail and find no ground what whatsoever is made out for enhancem hancement of the compensation.

6. Perusal of the record shows th e of ws that it was the pleaded case of the appellan pellant-claimants before the learned learned Tribunal that prior to the accident dec nt deceased-Narender Singh was wor as working as driver-cum-transport In-charge; an ; and also an agriculturist. It was was further averred that deceased also used to sed to do the work of an Electrician a ician and was earning ₹35,000/- per month. How . However, the appellant-claimants ha ants have miserably failed to prove their above above-said contentions. No doubt, th ubt, the appellants have examined PW-3 Dine Dinesh Kumar, Transport In-charg charge Shri Ram Angel Senior Secondary S dary School, Rajiaka, Rewari, who ha ho had produced Salary Certificate of deceased eased Ex. P-1; his Appointment Lette etter Ex. P-2; driving licence of deceased-Na Narender Singh Ex. P-3; and h . and his Salary Reward Ex. P-4. However, th ver, the said evidence was rejected jected by the learned Tribunal on RISHU KATARIA 2026.02.26 19:59 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. FAO-1295 95-2025 (O&M) -4- account of t nt of the fact that although, as per the 2, the Appointment Letter Ex.P-2, deceased wa ed was working in the said school s hool since 01.10.2019. But Salary Certificate w icate was produced only for the mo he month of July 2020. No other school recor l record before and after July 2020 has 20 has been produced to prove/show that decease eceased had been working with the sa 019 the said school from October 2019 till July 202 ly 2020. Even no school attendance dance register; salary disbursement register, or a r, or any other record was produced t uced to prove that the deceased had been receivin eceiving ₹15,000/- per month by way 019, y way of salary from October 2019, till July 202 ly 2020. Accordingly, ld. Tribunal unal had concluded that deceased- Narender Sin der Singh had worked as Peon-cum- -Driver of the school only since July2020; an ; and the accident in question had 0, in had taken place on 28.07.2020, in pursuance t nce to which deceased had expire expired on 27.09.2020. Thus, the deceased had ed had worked in the said school only i.e. l only for a period of one month i.e. July 2020.

7. Further, as per Salary Certifi Certificate Ex. P-1, salary of the deceased wa ed was shown to be ₹15,000/- per mo per month. However, the said salary certificate ca cate cannot be relied upon for the af the aforesaid reason that deceased was shown t hown to be working in the school onl nth. ol only for a period of one month. Moreover, ver, there is no supportive evidence o t of ence on record such as statement of accounts of nts of the deceased in order to show t show that the deceased was earning ₹20,000/- pe per month from other sources. In In this circumstance, the learned Tribunal ha al has rightly assessed monthly i thly income of the deceased at ₹10,000/-per per month. I find no error in the sam the same.

8. Further, the learned Tribunal h unal had determined the age of the deceased as ed as 46 years at the time of acciden ccident on the basis of Postmortem RISHU KATARIA 2026.02.26 19:59 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. FAO-1295 95-2025 (O&M) -5- Report Ex. P t Ex. P-19. Accordingly, the learned T e an rned Tribunal had correctly made an addition of 2 n of 25% towards future prospects, th cts, thereby calculating the monthly income of th e of the deceased at ₹12,500/- (₹10,0 e is ,000/- + ₹2,500/-). The same is in accordanc ordance with law. Learned Tribunal bunal has further correctly applied multiplier of lier of 13.

9. As there were 02 married daug daughters of the deceased who are not depende pendent upon the deceased, the learn learned Tribunal had rightly made the deductio duction of 1/4th towards personal ex As nal expenses of the deceased. As per judgmen dgment passed by Hon’ble Suprem v. upreme Court in Deep Shikha v. National In nal Insurance Company Ltd., (SC d # ., (SC) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2729764 it it is held that “Compensation un ct, n under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Marr arried daughter of deceased not en t entitled to compensation for loss of dependen dency unless proven financial depe ase, dependency.”. In the present case, the claimant imants no. 3 and 4 are the married dau ed daughters of the deceased.

10. Under the Conventional Head Heads, the learned Tribunal had awarded a total amount of ₹2,40,000/– (₹ s of ₹40,000/- each) towards loss of spousal con l consortium (claimant No. 1-w widow); parental consortium (claimants N ants No. 2 to 4); and filial consortium The m (claimants No. 5 and 6). The Tribunal has al has further awarded an amount o ount of ₹15,000/- towards funeral expenses and ses and ₹15,000/- towards loss of esta f estate. Thus, the Tribunal granted total amount mount of ₹17,32,500/- as compensatio nsation to the appellant-claimants.

11. From the above facts, it is cl t is clear that a very just and fair compensatio nsation has been awarded to the appel 2 of appellants. No doubt Chapter-12 of the Act is ct is a beneficial legislation yet, a ’ble yet, as cautioned by the Hon’ble Supreme Co me Court, the same cannot be allowed ll or llowed to be treated as a windfall or RISHU KATARIA 2026.02.26 19:59 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. FAO-1295 95-2025 (O&M) -6- a source of rce of profit. Hon’ble Supreme Cou & e Court in State of Haryana & Another V er Vs. Jasbir Kaur & Others, # thers, Law Finder Doc ID # 64043 and Divisional Controller K.S.R.T tty’, .S.R.T.C. Vs. Mahadev Shetty’, (2003) 7 SC ) 7 SCC 197, has held that the amoun d be amount of compensation should be just and reas d reasonable, it should neither be a b be a bonanza nor a source of profit but at the sa the same time it should not be a pitt o be a pittance. Thus, all that has to be determined i ined in the facts of a given case is, th e is, that the compensation accorded is ‘just’. In m t’. In my considered view, in the pres e present case, the learned Tribunal has awarded arded a very ‘just’ compensation, wh on, which is in accordance with the law laid dow id down by the Hon’ble Supreme C eme Court and therefore, does not warrant the t the interference of this Court. In th ger, . In the case of General Manager, KSRTC Vs C Vs. Susamma Thomas & Oth CC Others, 1994 Volume-II SCC 176, the Ho e Hon’ble Supreme Court has hel thy, as held that misplaced sympathy, generosity a sity and benevolence cannot be the g e the guiding factor for determining the compens mpensation.

12. Further, the Hon’ble Supreme reme Court in the case of Reshma Kumari v. M ri v. Madan Mohan (SC) 2013(5) Sc c ID (5) Scale 160; Law Finder Doc ID # 421379; 379; Civil Appeal No.4646 and and 4647 of 2009 decided on

02.04.2013, 2013, has held that: “Motor Vehicl hicles Act, 1988, Section 168 - Section 168 168 provides that amount of compen pensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal wh l which appears to it to be just - The The expression, ‘just’ means that the amount unt so determined is fair, reasonab d onable and equitable by accepted legal standa ndards and not a forensic lottery - - Obviously ‘just compensation’ does not m ot mean ‘perfect’ or ‘absolute lute’ compensation - The RISHU KATARIA 2026.02.26 19:59 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. FAO-1295 95-2025 (O&M) -7- compensatio sation principle requires examinatio nation of the particular situation obtaining un g uniquely in an individual case.”

13. In view of the discussion abov above, I find no case is made out that merits erits interference with the impug l is impugned Award. The appeal is . dismissed.

14. Pending application(s) if any als any also stand(s) disposed of. 2026

25.02.2026 ( NIDHI GUPTA ) JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No RISHU KATARIA 2026.02.26 19:59 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment.