Judgment · High Court · 2026

Judgment

#1. The record of the present case was destroyed in a fire incident in the High Court Branch. Learned counsel for the appellant/claimant has placed on record copies of the grounds of appeal, memo of parties and the Award, which are taken on record. The Registry is directed to tag the same at an appropriate place in the record.

#2. Since the liability of respondents No.1 to 3 has been held to be joint and several and respondents No.1 and 2 are the owners & respondent No.3 is the driver, there is no necessity to issue notice to respondent No.3-driver.

#3. This appeal has been instituted by claimants against the Award dated

28.10.2004 passed in MACT case No.13 of 14.1.2004 decided by the MACT, Rupnagar (for short “Tribunal”) in a petition under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 vide which a sum of Rs.7,50,000/- has been awarded as FAO-515-2005 - 2- compensation to the claimants along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of filing of claim petition till realization on account of death of Gurdial Singh in a motor vehicle accident.

#4. From the pleadings of parties, following issues were framed:- “1. Whether Gurdial Singh died in a road side accident caused by the driver Prem Dass while driving the Bus No.HP-18-3604 in a rash and negligent manner?OPP.

#2. Whether the claimants are entitled for the compensation as prayed for?OPP.

#4. Whether the claim petition is not maintainable?OPR Relief”

Thereafter, the parties led evidence in support of their case. After hearing the parties and going through the material on the file, learned Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.7,50,000/- as compensation to the claimants alongwith interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of claim petition till realization.

#7. Feeling aggrieved, the appeal in hand has been preferred by the claimants, against inadequate compensation. The material on file has been perused and parties have been heard.

#8. The only issue required to be determined in the present appeal relates to the assessment of compensation. Therefore, the entire facts regarding the manner of the accident are not required to be reproduced in detail, as the Tribunal has already held under Issue No.1 that the accident had occurred due to the rash and negligent driving on the part of respondent No.3 while driving the offending bus bearing No.HP-18-3604, owned by respondents No.1 and 2. No appeal or FAO-515-2005 - 3- cross-objections have been filed by respondents, challenging the said finding and accordingly finding on issue No.1 is not required to be interfered with.

#9. Learned counsel for the appellants argued that the impugned award vide which compensation of Rs.7,50,000/- has been awarded is based on conjectures and surmises and is liable to be modified and enhanced amount of compensation should be awarded. Learned counsel contends that deceased was working as a Qanungo in the Revenue Department in the State of Punjab and his salary was Rs.12,168/- per month out of which a sum of Rs.2,030/- was being deposited in GPF and towards Group Insurance Scheme. Learned Tribunal gravely erred while deducting the afore-said contributions to GPF and GIS while assessing his monthly income, whereas the contributions towards GPF and GIS are a part of savings of an employee, which are reimbursable at the time of superannuation. Learned counsel contends that the contributions towards GPF and GIS be taken into consideration while assessing the monthly income of the deceased. Learned counsel next contends that future prospects have not been added to the monthly income of the deceased contrary to settled provisions of law. Learned counsel further contends that no compensation has been paid under conventional heads i.e. loss of consortium and loss of estate and he prayed that compensation be awarded under all the heads and same should be suitably enhanced. In support of his contentions, learned counsel for the appellants has relied upon 2009(6) SCC 121 Sarla Verma and others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another, 2017 (16) SCC 680 National Insurance Co. Ltd Vs. Pranay Sethi and Other, 2018 (4) R.C.R. (Civil) 333 Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram alias Chuhru Ram & Others, (2021) 11 SCC 780 United India Insurance Co. Ltd. FAO-515-2005 - 4- Vs. Satinder Kaur.

#10. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondents No.1 and 2 argued that the award in question is well reasoned and justified. The material on file has been appreciated in the correct perspective while assessing the compensation and no interference in the same is thus called for.

#11. The term `just compensation’ has been elaborated by Hon’ble Supreme Court in 2009(1) RCR (Civil) 867 (SC), Syed Basheer Ahamed and Others Vs. Mohd. Jameel and Another, and it has been held that while assessing compensation in a motor accident claims case, the Tribunal should award compensation which appears to be just. The expression “which appears to be just” vests a wide discretion in the Tribunal in the matter of determination of compensation. Nevertheless, the wide amplitude of such power does not empower the Tribunal to determine the compensation arbitrarily, or to ignore settled principles relating to determination of compensation. It has been further held that although the Act is a beneficial legislation, it can neither be allowed to be used as a source of profit, nor as a windfall to the persons affected nor should it be punitive to the persons liable to pay compensation and that determination of compensation must be based on certain data establishing reasonable nexus between the loss incurred by the victim or dependents. It has been further held that misplaced sympathy, generosity and benevolence cannot be the guiding factors for determining the compensation. As such, compensation is required to be assessed by taking into consideration above-said parameters.

#12. As per version of claimants, deceased was working as a Qanungo in Revenue Department and posted in District Rupnagar and he was getting salary of FAO-515-2005 - 5- Rs.12,168/- per month. Besides this, he was also earning some amount from agriculture and dairy farming and his total income was Rs.20,000/- per month. The salary certificate Ex. P2 was led in evidence, which shows that his monthly income was Rs.12,168/- out of which a sum of Rs.2,030/- was deducted towards GPF and GIS and carryhome salary was Rs.10,138/-. The Tribunal took his monthly income to be Rs.10,000/-, after deducting the contributions deposited towards GPF and GIS. However, the same have been erroneously deducted, as the contributions towards GPF and GIS are a part of savings by an employee and are reimbursed at the time of retirement. The deceased was getting Rs.6,800/- per month as basic pay, Rs.100 as SA, Rs.3740/- as DA, Rs.250 as MA, Rs.408 as RRA, Rs.340 as HRA, Rs.50 as BA and Rs.480 as FTA and all these allowances were part of his salary and none of these allowances could have been deducted and accordingly, his monthly salary is taken as Rs.12,168/-.

#13. No evidence was led to establish that deceased owned any agricultural land or was running any milk dairy and the Tribunal has thus rightly not relied upon the oral evidence in this regard. Accordingly, the monthly salary of deceased is taken as Rs.12,168/-.

#14. Deceased was 43 years of age and was in permanent Government service and as such, 30% amount has to be added to the monthly income of the deceased towards future prospects in view of law laid down in Pranay Sethi’s case (supra), which takes his income to Rs.15,818/- (Rs.12,168/- + Rs.3,650/-). Out of this monthly income of Rs.15,818/-, a sum of Rs.2,000/- has to be deducted towards income tax and after deducting the same, the monthly income comes to Rs.13,818/-. FAO-515-2005 - 6-

#15. Deceased has left behind five dependents i.e. wife, three children and mother, and as such, 1/4th of the income has to be deducted towards personal and living expenses as per law laid down in Sarla Verma’s case (supra) and after deducting the same, the monthly loss of dependency comes out to Rs.10,363/- (Rs.13,818/- – Rs.3,455/-) and the annual loss of dependency comes out to Rs.1,24,356/- (Rs.10,363/- × 12).

#16. Since deceased was 43 years of age, multiplier of 14 has to be applied in view of the guidelines laid down in Sarla Verma’s case (supra), and after applying the same, the total loss of dependency comes out to Rs.17,40,984/-.

#17. In addition to this, claimant No.1 (wife of the deceased) is held entitled to a sum of Rs.70,000/- under conventional heads i.e. Rs.40,000/- towards loss of consortium, Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate and Rs.15,000/- on account of funeral expenses, as per law laid down in Pranay Sethi’s case (supra). Likewise, claimants No.2 to 5 (sons and mother of the deceased) are also held entitled to a sum of Rs.40,000/- each on account of loss of parental and filial consortium, in view of law laid down in Nanu Ram’s case (supra) and Satinder Kaur’s case (supra), which takes the compensation to Rs.19,70,984/-.

#18. Accordingly, the compensation to be awarded to the claimants is assessed as under:- S.No. Under Head Age of deceased Amount 43 years

#7. Monthly income of deceased Rs.12,168/- per month Future prospects @ 30% Rs.3,650/- Total income Deduction towards income tax Rs.15,818/- per month Rs.2,000/- per month Monthly income after deduction of income Rs.13,818/- Number of dependents 5 FAO-515-2005 - 7-

#15. Deduction towards personal expenses of the deceased Rs.3,455/- (1/4th) Monthly loss of dependency Rs.10,363/- Annual loss of dependency Rs.1,24,356/- (Rs.10,363/- × 12) Multiplier Loss of dependency Compensation under conventional heads to claimant No.1- wife Compensation to three children and mother (loss of parental and filial consortium) 14 Rs.17,40,984/- Rs.70,000/- Rs.1,60,000/- (Rs.40,000 × 4) Total Compensation Rs.19,70,984/- (Rounded

#16. Interest Rs.19,71,000/-) 9%

#20. Resultantly, the appeal in hand is partly accepted with costs and claimants are held entitled to a sum of Rs.19,71,000/- as compensation. The enhanced compensation thus comes out to Rs.12,21,000/- (Rs.19,71,000/- - Rs.7,50,000/-) over and above the compensation awarded by the Tribunal along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of claim petition i.e. 14.01.2004 till realization payable by respondents No.1 to 3 jointly and severally. Out of the enhanced compensation, a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- each along with proportionate interest be paid to claimants No.2 to 5 (sons and mother of the deceased) while balance amount be paid to claimant No.1 (wife) along with proportionate interest. However, the primary liability shall be of respondents No.1 and 2, who are the owners of the offending vehicle, while respondent No.3 was their employee as a driver.

#21. Registry is directed to email the authenticated copy of the award to the respondent Insurance Company in terms of directions issued by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Writ Petition (Civil) No.534 of 2020 titled Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Versus Union of India and others, decided on FAO-515-2005 - 8-

16.03.2021 and Insurance Company shall comply with the directions as issued under Clause (F) of the said judgment.

#22. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.

13.07.2026 amandeep (YASHVIR SINGH RATHOR) JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned. Whether Reportable. : : Yes/No Yes/No