26.08.2025 Sukhpal K pal Kaur and others … v. Inderjeet rjeet Singh and others
Case Details
FAO-3586-2019 (O & M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJA IN TH AT CHANDIGAR UNJAB AND HARYANA IGARH 117 FAO No.3586 of Date of decision: 586 of 2019 (O & M) cision: -26.08.2025 Sukhpal K pal Kaur and others …..Appellants Versus Inderjeet rjeet Singh and others …..Respondents CORAM: AM:- HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NI E NIDHI GUPTA Present:- None for the appellants. NIDHI GU HI GUPTA J. (Oral) Present appeal has been filed filed by the appellants/claimants seeking enh ing enhancement of compensation of on of Rs.17,35,300/- awarded by the learned earned Motor Accident Claims Tribun Tribunal, Bathinda (hereinafter to be referred eferred as ‘the learned Tribunal’) vid ) vide impugned Award dated 05.11.2018 1.2018 passed in MAC File No.27 da .27 dated 01.8.2017, filed under Section 166 on 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 198 , 1988. Order sheets reveal that there there has been no representation on behalf ehalf of appellants since the incepti nception of the present Appeal. Today also y also there is no representation on be on behalf of appellants. Clearly, neither the er the appellant nor their counsel are seriously interested in pursuing th ing the present Appeal. Accordingly rdingly, the appeal being of the year 2019 9 is being disposed of by this Co his Court after perusing the case file and the nd the record in minute detail. VIJAY ASIJA 2025.08.28 09.13 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-3586-2019 (O & M) 2 Perusal of the Grounds nds of Appeal reveals that enhanceme ement of compensation has been been sought on the ground that income of me of the deceased has been taken taken on lower side as only Rs.10,000/ 0,000/- per month; and future prospec rospects has been added only @ 40%. It is . It is further averred that enhancemen cement is made out in favour of the appella ppellants in view of the fact that 1/4 at 1/4th deduction ought to have been made made whereas 1/3rd has been made made; and multiplier of 15 has been applie applied and the same deserves to be en o be enhanced. However, a perusal of the im the impugned Award reveals that it was the s the pleaded case of the appellants th ants that the deceased was owner of the three e three-wheeler and used to ply the sa the same on hire basis and used to earn Rs.2 rn Rs.20,000/- per month. Besides this es this the deceased was stated to be owning wning six acres of agricultural land land from which he was stated to be earning arning Rs.50,000/- per month; and the nd therefore, the total income of the decease eceased was Rs.70,000/- per month. onth. However, the said alleged income of me of the deceased was not proved proved by the appellants as no income-tax tax return, no statement of account ccount of any Bank, nor any other ledger entr er entry pertaining to the deceased w ased were brought on record to prove his e his income. Therefore, the learned earned Tribunal has accordingly taken the in the income of the deceased as Rs.10 Rs.10,000/- per month. I find no error in the in the same. The age of the deceased is st d is stated to be 39 years at the time of dea of death. Therefore, addition of 40% t 40% towards future prospect has been corre correctly made; and multiplier of 1 r of 15 has also been correctly applied. As ed. As the claimants are three in num in number, deduction of 1/3rd is VIJAY ASIJA 2025.08.28 09.13 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-3586-2019 (O & M) 3 also corre correctly made. Learned Tribun Tribunal has further awarded Rs.55,000/ 5,000/- under the conventional heads eads. From the above facts, it is cle t is clear that a very just and fair compensati ensation has been awarded to to the appellants. Nothing whatsoever soever has been shown to this this Court that would merit enhanceme ncement of the compensation granted anted to the appellants. No doubt Chapter-12 12 of the Act is a beneficial legis l legislation yet, as cautioned by the Hon’ble on’ble Supreme Court, the same cann e cannot be allowed to be treated as a windfa windfall or a source of profit. Hon’bl on’ble Supreme Court in ‘State of Haryan aryana & Another Vs. Jasbir Kau r Kaur & Others’ Law Finder Doc ID ID # 64043 and ‘Divisional Con l Controller K.S.R.T.C. Vs. Mahadev adev Shetty’, (2003) 7 SCC 197, ha has held that the amount of compensati ensation should be just and reasona asonable, it should neither be a bonanza no nza nor a source of profit but at the sa t the same time it should not be a pittance. In nce. In my considered view, in the in the present case, the learned Tribunal h nal has awarded a very ‘just’ co st’ compensation, which is in accordance rdance with the law laid down by the H y the Hon’ble Supreme Court and therefore, d fore, does not warrant the interferenc ference of this Court. In the case of “Genera eneral Manager, KSRTC Vs. Susa . Susamma Thomas & Others” 1994 Volu Volume-II SCC 176, the Hon’ble Su ’ble Supreme Court has held that misplaced laced sympathy, generosity and be nd benevolence cannot be the guiding fac ing factor for determining the compens mpensation. 12. Further, a 3-Judge Bench ju nch judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme C eme Court in the case of “Reshma K a Kumari v. Madan Mohan (SC) 2013( 013(5) Scale 160; Law Finder Do r Doc ID # 421379; has held that: “Moto Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, Section 1 on 168 - Section 168 provides VIJAY ASIJA 2025.08.28 09.13 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-3586-2019 (O & M) 4 that amoun ount of compensation awarded by t by the Claims Tribunal which appears to rs to it to be just - The expression, 'ju n, 'just' means that the amount so determi ermined is fair, reasonable and equ equitable by accepted legal standards a rds and not a forensic lottery - Obv Obviously 'just compensation' does not not mean 'perfect' or 'absolute' c te' compensation - The just compensati nsation principle requires examin amination of the particular situation ob on obtaining uniquely in an individua vidual case.”
Decision
In view of the above, the prese e present appeal is dismissed. Pending application(s), if any if any also stand(s) disposed of. 6, 2025 August26 Vijay Asija Whether spea Whether Repo r speaking/reasoned Yes / No r Reportable Yes / No ( NIDHI GUPTA ) JUDGE VIJAY ASIJA 2025.08.28 09.13 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document