2026 Anita and ot & Ors. v. Neeraj and o & Ors.

1. Prayer in this application fil on filed under Section 5 of the Limitation A tion Act, 1963 read with section 15 n of 151 CPC is for condonation of delay of 31 31 days in filing the accompanying nying appeal.

3. Heard. 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 31 days in filing the pre present appeal is condoned. FAO-1551 1551-2025

The appellant-claimants have fi ave filed the present appeal seeking enhancemen cement of the compensation amount of ount of ₹25,90,500/- awarded by the learned Mo d Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, ‘the ibunal, Chandigarh (for short-‘the learned Trib d Tribunal) vide impugned Award d in ward dated 14.10.2024, passed in petition bear n bearing MACP No. 352 dated 14.07 166 14.07.2021 filed under Section 166 of the Motor Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The 04 cla claimants are the: i) 41-year-old widow; ii) ; ii) 17-year-old son; iii) 16-year- -old son; and iv) 64-year-old RISHU KATARIA 2026.02.26 19:59 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. FAO-1551 51-2025 (O&M) -2- mother of de of deceased-Vijender Kumar @ Baj @ Bajender Kumar, who was aged around 44 ye years at the time of accident.

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-Vi Vijender Kumar, had died due to in a ue to injuries, suffered by him in a motor vehic vehicular accident that took place o lace on 07.04.2021due to rash and negligent d ent driving of Truck bearing regi g registration No. HP-11-A-5826 (hereinafter nafter ‘the offending vehicle’) by res by respondent No.1-Neeraj; owned by responde spondent No. 2-Asha Devi; and ins nd insured by respondent No. 3- Insurance Co nce Company. Ld. Tribunal awarded arded compensation as above along with interest nterest @ 7% per annum from the da the date of filing the claim petition till actual re tual realization. All respondents wer ts were held jointly and severally liable to pay to pay the compensation.

The only ground on which t hich the appellant-claimants have sought enhan t enhancement of compensation is tha is that income of the deceased has been assesse ssessed on the lower side as ₹15,000/

5,000/- per month. Learned counsel for the appe e appellants submits that prior to the to the accident, the deceased was running a a Readymade Garment Shop at Ba at Baltana from which his annual income was e was ₹4,85,000/-. Although it is not is not argued, but a perusal of the Grounds of ds of Appeal shows that the appellant t on ellants have sought enhancement on the ground t ound that future prospects ought to h t to have been added @ 30%; that ₹1,00,000/- - each should have been awarded arded under the head of Love and Affection; an ion; and that interest ought to been aw en awarded @ 12% per annum.

No other argument is raised o I ised on behalf of the appellants. I have heard l eard learned counsel and perused the d no sed the case file in detail. I find no RISHU KATARIA 2026.02.26 19:59 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. FAO-1551 51-2025 (O&M) -3- merit in the in the submissions made by learne learned counsel for the appellant- claimants.

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 was running a Readyma ana, dymade Garment Shop at Baltana, from which hich the annual income of the deceas deceased was ₹4,85,000/-. To prove their case, t case, the appellants have produced uced Income Tax Returns of the deceased for ed for the Assessment Year 2016-17 E 17 Ex. P-5; and 2017-18 as Ex.P- 6, which sh ich showed the annual income of d e of deceased as ₹2,41,740/- and ₹2,48,780/- - respectively. Admittedly, the y, the deceased had expired on

07.04.2021.

2021. On a Court query as to why th hy the Income Tax Returns of the deceased for ed for the preceding 03 years i.e. 20 21 2018-19, 2019-20 and 2020-21 have not be not been produced by the appellan ppellants, learned counsel for the appellant ha ant has no reply. In this circumstan mstance, the learned Tribunal has correctly ass tly assessed income of the deceased a r the ased as ₹15,000/- per month for the following rea reasons: -

9. ....The Income Tax Re Returns Ex.P5 and Ex.P6 of deceased Vijender Kumar alia alias Bajender Kumar cannot be taken into consideration for ass r assessing his income at the time of death, because there is no c no continuity and his income was apparently fluctuating as evid evidently no income tax returns were filed by him in the he later years for the period immediately preceding his d is death. But in any case the deceased Vijender Kumar a r alias Bajender Kumar was engaged in Readymade Garme rment business until his untimely demise in 2021 and despite the the fluctuation being there in his earnings he demonstrates goo good financial status since was supporting his family well. In ’s l. In determining the deceased’s income this Tribunal aims to to strike a balance between the RISHU KATARIA 2026.02.26 19:59 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. FAO-1551 51-2025 (O&M) -4- earnings of a skilled worker a er and those of a business owner with entrepreneurial expertise rtise. And while doing so this Tribunal considers it to be just st and appropriate if the income of the deceased is assessed som somewhat exceeding as to that of a skilled labour in the given fac n facts and circumstances. As such in the light of above discussed ssed facts this Tribunal assess the income of deceased as Rs. 1500 15000/- per month.

I find no error in the aforesai foresaid reasoning of the Tribunal. Thus, incom income of the deceased has been co en correctly assessed as ₹15,000/– per month.

Further, the learned Tribunal h unal had determined the age of the deceased as ed as 44 years at the time of acciden ccident on the basis of Postmortem Report. Acco t. Accordingly, the Tribunal had corre 25% correctly made an addition of 25% towards fut s future prospects in conformity ’ble rmity with judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Co me Court in National Insurance C e Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi and ot d others, (2017) 16 SCC 680; and r of ; and correctly applied multiplier of 14as per law er law laid down by the Hon’ble Su a ble Supreme Court in Sarla Verma vs. Delhi Tra i Transport Corporation, Law Find Finder Doc Id # 188882.

As there were 04 claimants imants, deduction of 1/4thtowards personal exp al expenses of the deceased was co as correctly made by the learned Tribunal. . Under the Conventional Heads Heads, the learned Tribunal had awarded an ed an amount of ₹48,000/- to each of s of ach of the claimants towards loss of spousal con l consortium (claimant No. 1-w widow); parental consortium (claimants N ants No. 2 and 3); and filial conso The consortium (claimant No. 4). The learned Trib d Tribunal has further awarded an a d an amount of ₹18,000/- towards funeral expe l expenses and ₹18,000/- towards los loss of estate. Thus, the learned RISHU KATARIA 2026.02.26 19:59 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. FAO-1551 51-2025 (O&M) -5- Tribunal had al had granted total amount of ₹25,90 25,90,500/- as compensation to the appellant-cla claimants in following manner: - Income G Gross l Annual 00x12 Rs.15000x12 on of 25% on account Addition of re prospects in view of of future pro of deceased the age of de tion of 1/4th on account Deduction of rsonal expenditure of personal f size of family view of size lier of 14 to be applied Multiplier of of his age at the time in view of h of death Compensatio account of de Loss of Estat Funeral expe Loss of spou Loss of paren f Estate l expenses f spousal consortium f parental consortium ensation payable on dependency f filial consortium Loss of filial Compensation along Total Com interest @ 7% per intere ₹1,80,000/- 180000+4500 +45000=2,25,000/- 225000-5625 56250=168750/- 168750x14=2 x14=23,62,500/- ₹23,62,500/ ,500/- (claimant No.1) ₹18,000/- ₹18,000/- ₹48,000/- (cla ₹48,000x2= 3) (claimant No. 4) ₹48,000/- (cla ₹25,90,500/ /- 0x2=₹96,000/- (claimants No. 2 and

From the above facts, it is cle is clear that a very just and fair compensatio nsation has been awarded to the ap the appellants. Nothing has been shown to th to this Court that would merit inter it interference with the impugned Award. No d . No doubt Chapter-12 of the Act is a ct is a beneficial legislation yet, as cautioned by ned by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, th urt, the same cannot be allowed to be treated as ated as a windfall or a source of profit profit. Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Ha Haryana & Another Vs. Jasbir K ir Kaur & Others, Law Finder Doc D # 64043 and Divisional Co ID Controller K.S.R.T.C. Vs. MahadevSh evShetty’, (2003) 7 SCC 197, has has held that the amount of compensatio nsation should be just and reasonab asonable, it should neither be a bonanza nor za nor a source of profit but at the sa the same time it should not be a pittance. Thu e. Thus, all that has to be determined mined in the facts of a given case RISHU KATARIA 2026.02.26 19:59 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. FAO-1551 51-2025 (O&M) -6- is, that the c t the compensation accorded is ‘just’. ‘just’. In my considered view, in the present resent case, the learned Tribunal h unal has awarded a very ‘just’ compensatio nsation, which is in accordance with e with the law laid down by the Hon’ble Sup le Supreme Court and therefore, does , does not warrant the interference of this Cour Court. In the case of General Mana anager, KSRTC Vs. Susamma Thomas & s & Others, 1994 Volume-II SCC SCC 176, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has h has held that misplaced sympathy, g athy, generosity and benevolence cannot be the t be the guiding factor for determining ining the compensation.

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.

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.