FAO-2063 v. Surender Jag

Judgment

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 75 75 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 75 days in filing the pre present appeal is condoned. FAO-2063 2063-2025

1. The appellant-claimants have fi ave filed the present appeal seeking enhancemen cement of the compensation amount of ount of ₹21,66,000/- awarded by the learned Mot d Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, nal, Narnaul (for short-‘the learned Tribunal) vi al) vide impugned Award dated 20 20.09.2024, passed in petition bearing MA g MACP No. 67-2021 dated 05.03.20 6 of .03.2021 filed under Section 166 of RISHU KATARIA 2026.03.25 18:14 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. FAO-2063 63-2025 (O&M) -2- the Motor V otor Vehicles Act, 1988. Out of the to n of f the total awarded compensation of ₹21,66,000/ ,000/-; 10% was deducted towar nce; towards contributory negligence; thereby gran y granting compensation of ₹19,49,40 9,49,400/- to the appellants. The 03 claimants ar nts are the: i) 20-year-old widow; ii) iii) ; ii) 50-year-old mother; and iii) 52-year-old old father of deceased-Rupesh, who , who was aged 22 years at the time ident. 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-Ru Rupesh, had died due to injuries juries suffered by him in a motor vehicular acc lar accident that took place on 29.11.2 9.11.2020 due to rash and negligent driving of g of car bearing registration No. DL ‘the DL-2C-BB-6248 (hereinafter ‘the offending v ing vehicle’) owned and driven ven by respondent No.1-Surender Jaglan; and ; and insured by respondent No. No. 2-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 p laim petition till actual realization. Both the res respondents were held jointly an tly and severally liable to pay the compensatio nsation.

3. Learned counsel for the appe t of appellants seeks enhancement of compensatio nsation by submitting that income of me of the deceased has been taken on the lowe e lower side as only ₹10,000/- per per month. It is submitted that deceased w was an agriculturist and Dairy Dairy Farmer; and was earning ₹25,000/- per month. However, the lear e learned Tribunal had failed to appreciate t iate the evidence adduced by the the appellant-claimants and had assessed the ed the income the deceased on th it is on the lower side. Further, it is submitted th tted that deduction of 1/3rd has wrongl rongly been made. Even multiplier RISHU KATARIA 2026.03.25 18:14 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. FAO-2063 63-2025 (O&M) -3- of 18 is wro wrongly applied by the learned Trib

t the ed Tribunal. It is contended that the learned Trib d Tribunal should have awarded ₹5,00 tate; 5,00,000/- towards loss of estate; and parenta parental consortium have to be be awarded of ₹20,00,000/-. Accordingly dingly, it is prayed that the present ap ent appeal may be allowed; and the Award dated dated 20.09.2024 be modified; and th n be and the amount of compensation be enhanced.

4. 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 merit in the in the submissions made by learne learned counsel for the appellant- claimants.

5. Perusal of the record shows th e of ws that it was the pleaded case of the appellan pellants before the learned Tribuna ribunal that prior to the accident deceased wa was an agriculturist and was als as also doing dairy farming from which he w he was earning ₹25,000/- per month month. However, claimant No. 1/ widow of t of the deceased while appearing aring as PW-1 had deposed that deceased wa ed was an ITI Diploma holder. Duri During her cross-examination she stated that sh that she had not brought any record ecord regarding ITI Diploma of her deceased hus ed husband.

6. Claimant No. 3/father of the g as f the deceased while appearing as PW-2 has m has made contradictory statement to ent to the effect that deceased was 10+2 pass an pass and had also done ITI. PW-2 had 2 had further admitted that he had not brought a ought any record regarding education a It ation and income of the deceased. It has also com so come on record that the deceased w yee. ased was not an income tax payee. In this back background as education, avocation cation and income of the deceased RISHU KATARIA 2026.03.25 18:14 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. FAO-2063 63-2025 (O&M) -4- remained un ed unproved, the learned Tribunal ribunal had taken income of the deceased as ed as ₹10,000/- per month. I find no e d no error in the same.

7. Further, age of deceased was d t the was determined as 22 years at the time of accid f accident on the basis of Postmortem gly, ortem Report Ex. P-6. Accordingly, the Tribuna ibunal had correctly made an addi addition of 40% towards future prospects in cts in conformity the law laid down b own by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in National onal Insurance Company Limited v rs, ited vs. Pranay Sethi and others, (2017) 16 SC 6 SCC 680; and Tribunal had correc correctly applied multiplier of 18.

8. As there were 03 claimants, the de a ts, the learned Tribunal had made a deduction o tion of 1/3rd towards personal expen o. 3 expenses. In fact, claimant No. 3 being 52-yea year-old father of the deceased co o be could not have been held to be dependent upon the deceased. Under the Co the Conventional Heads, the learned Tribunal had al had awarded an amount of ₹40,000 ,000/- each to all the 03 claimants towards Los s Loss of Consortium; ₹15,000/- tow towards Funeral Expenses; and ₹15,000/- to towards Loss of Estate. Thus, the s, the learned Tribunal had granted total amount mount of ₹19,49,400/- as compensatio nsation to the appellant-claimants.

9. 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 ID # 6 # 64043 and Divisional Controller oller K.S.R.T.C. Vs. Mahadeva Shetty’, (200 (2003) 7 SCC 197, has held that th that the amount of compensation RISHU KATARIA 2026.03.25 18:14 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. FAO-2063 63-2025 (O&M) -5- should be j be just and reasonable, it should n ould neither be a bonanza nor a source of pr of profit but at the same time it sh e it should not be a pittance. In General Ma l Manager, KSRTC Vs. Susamma mma Thomas & Others, 1994 Volume-II II SCC 176, the Hon’ble Supre Supreme Court has held that misplaced ced sympathy, generosity and bene benevolence cannot be guiding factor for de for determining the compensation.

10. 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.

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

23.03.2026 ( NIDHI GUPTA ) JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No RISHU KATARIA 2026.03.25 18:14 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment.