Smt. Mukesh and others v. Inder Singh and others
Case Details
CM-17648-CII-2025 in/and FAO-600-2001 (O&M) -1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 103 CM-17648-CII-2025 in/and FAO-600-2001 (O&M) Date of decision: 05.09.2025 Smt. Mukesh and others ...Appellant(s) Vs. Inder Singh and others ...Respondent(s) CORAM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA Present:- Mr. Surinder Gandhi, Advocate for the appellants. *** NIDHI GUPTA, J. CM-17648-CII-2025 Prayer in the present application under Order 41 Rule 19 CPC is for revival of the Appeal in its original form. 2. 3. Heard. On the last date of hearing i.e. 29.08.2025, following order was passed:- “Present is a total burnt case.
Legal Reasoning
Learned counsel for the appellants earlier sought time to submit the reconstructed copy of the brief for reconstruction of the record. OfÏce report indicates that counsel for the appellants has been duly informed, however, none has put in appearance on behalf of appellants. Even on the last date of hearing the appellants remained unrepresented. Prior to that on two dates learned counsel for the appellants had not DIVYANSHI 2025.09.09 12:11 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CM-17648-CII-2025 in/and FAO-600-2001 (O&M) -2 - addressed arguments as he had submitted that he was unable to trace the brief.
Decision
In view of the above, the present appeal is being disposed of, however with liberty to the appellants to revive the same within a period of six weeks from today, if any cause of action survives. Pending application(s), if any, shall stands disposed of.” 4. In view of averments mentioned in the application, the same is allowed; the main appeal is revived; and at the request of ld. counsel for the applicant/appellants, the main Appeal is taken up on Board today itself. FAO-600-2001 (O&M) The present appeal has been filed by the claimants seeking enhancement of compensation of Rs.1,92,000/- awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bhiwani (hereinafter “the learned Tribunal”) vide Award dated 30.11.1999 passed in Claim Petition No. 21 dated 21.07.1997 filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, (hereinafter “the Act”). The 4 claimants are the widow; minor daughter; and parents of the deceased Bhola @ Attar Singh, who was about 25 years old at time of death. 2. The case pleaded by the appellants in the claim petition before the Tribunal as recorded in para two of the impugned Award was as follows: DIVYANSHI 2025.09.09 12:11 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document “2. On 16.5.1997 Bhola alias Attar Singh son of Bhanwar Singh, resident of village Barwa, district Bhiwani, was CM-17648-CII-2025 in/and FAO-600-2001 (O&M) -3 - travelling in jeep No.DL-2C/F-8036, driven by respondent No.1 Inder Singh and was going towards village Bhariwas, district Bhiwani. The case of the petitioners is that the said jeep was being driven rashly and negligently by respondent No.1 and that at about 7-10 PM when it reached in the area of village Bhariwas, a Tata vehicle No. HR-46/6887 came from the opposite direction at a very fast speed, being driven rashly and negligently, and collided with the aforesaid jeep, as a result of which Bhola alias Attar Singh suffered serious injuries. He was taken to the General Hospital, Bhiwani, where he expired on the same day. FIR No. 180 dated 16.5.1997 was lodged at Police Station Tosham regarding this accident. The case of the petitioners is that the aforesaid accident had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the drivers of both the vehicles involved in the accident. It is also the case of the petitioners that the deceased was aged 25 years at the time of his death and he was earning Rs.5000/- per month by doing agricultural work and by selling milk.” 3. Learned Tribunal, upon appraisal of the pleadings and evidence adduced by the parties, had concluded that the deceased- Bhola @ Attar Singh had died due to the rash and negligent driving of a Jeep bearing registration No.DL-2C/F-8036 (hereinafter “the offending vehicle”) by respondent No.1. Ld. Tribunal, accordingly, awarded the above said compensation of Rs.1,92,000/- along with interest @ 12% per annum. Respondent No.1-driver of the Jeep, respondent No.2-A being owner of the Jeep and respondent No.3-insurer of the Jeep were held jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation amount. DIVYANSHI 2025.09.09 12:11 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CM-17648-CII-2025 in/and FAO-600-2001 (O&M) -4 - 4. Learned counsel for the appellants seeks enhancement of compensation by submitÝng that income of the deceased has been taken on the lower side as Rs.1,500/- p.m. It is submitted that it had been proved by the appellants before Tribunal that the deceased was 25 years old at the time of death and was earning Rs.5,000/- p.m. by doing agricultural work and selling milk. Thus, income of the deceased deserves to be enhanced. 5. Learned counsel for the appellants further submits that learned Tribunal has made a deduction of 1/3rd towards personal expenses; whereas given the fact that the claimants were 4 in number, deduction of 1/4th ought to have been made. It is further submitted that the multiplier of 16 has been applied, whereas multiplier of 18 ought to have been applied. It is accordingly prayed that the present Appeal be allowed; and compensation be enhanced in the above manner. 6. No other argument is raised on behalf of the appellants. I have heard ld. Counsel and perused the case file in detail. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the submissions of the appellants. 7. Perusal of the record shows that the appellants were unable to prove the alleged income or avocation of the deceased as an agriculturist and dairy milk supplier. Even no evidence was produced by the appellants regarding the land which was being cultivated by deceased or the sale of milk by the deceased. In any event, even if assertion of the appellants is accepted, no loss of agricultural income or dairy farming income would be caused to the appellants as the land, and the dairy farm DIVYANSHI 2025.09.09 12:11 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CM-17648-CII-2025 in/and FAO-600-2001 (O&M) -5 - would be inherited by them. Accordingly, I find no error in the income of Rs.1,500/-p.m. as assessed by the learned Tribunal. 8. Further it has been submitted that as there were 4 claimants, deduction of 1/4th ought to have been made. However, the said document is fallacious as there is nothing on record to indicate that father of the deceased was also dependent upon him. Admittedly, deceased was only 25 years old at the time of accident. Thus, his father/claimant No.3 would be about 50-55 years old by reasonable standard; and would therefore not be dependent upon the deceased. In such a situation, deduction of 1/3rd towards personal expenses is correct. 9. Since the Award is of the year 1999, therefore, multiplier of 16 has been applied as per the law prevailing in the year 1999. Moreover, interest has been granted @ 12% p.a. which is on the higher side as the normal rate of interest as on today is 6% p.a. 10. A 3-Judge Bench judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of “Reshma Kumari v. Madan Mohan (SC) 2013(5) Scale 160; Law Finder Doc ID # 421379; has held that: “Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, Section 168 - Section 168 provides that amount of compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal which appears to it to be just - The expression, 'just' means that the amount so determined is fair, reasonable and equitable by accepted legal standards and not a forensic lottery - Obviously 'just compensation' does not mean 'perfect' or 'absolute' compensation - The just compensation principle requires examination of the particular situation obtaining uniquely in an individual case.” DIVYANSHI 2025.09.09 12:11 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CM-17648-CII-2025 in/and FAO-600-2001 (O&M) -6 - 11. In view of the facts and law as noticed above, I find no ground is made out to interfere in the impugned Award. Accordingly, the present appeal is hereby dismissed. 12. Pending application(s) if any also stand(s) disposed of. 05.09.2025 Divyanshi (NIDHI GUPTA) JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned: Whether reportable: Yes/No Yes/No DIVYANSHI 2025.09.09 12:11 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document