FAO-4801-2002 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 275 FAO-4801-2002 (O&M) Date of decision: 16.07.2026 SATNAM KAUR AND ORS. ....Appellants Versus HARPAL SINGH AND ORS ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHVIR SINGH RATHOR Present : Mr. Daanish Mahajan, Advocate for the appellants. Mr. Vinod Gupta, Advocate and Mr. Armaan Gagneja, Advocate for Insurance Company. YASHVIR SINGH RATHOR. J.(Oral) 1. Learned counsel for respondent No. 3 appeared. A perusal of Award shows that learned Tribunal has held the owner, driver and insurer jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation. Therefore, there is no necessity to issue notice to owner and driver. Accordingly, issuance of notice to respondents No. 1 and 2 is dispensed with. 2. This appeal has been instituted by claimants against the Award dated 02.05.2002 decided by the MACT, Amritsar (for short “Tribunal”) passed in MACT case No.73 of 1999/2000 in a petition under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short ‘Act’) vide which a sum of Rs.3,40,000/- has been awarded as compensation to the claimants along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of claim petition till realization on account of death of Tilak Raj in a motor vehicle accident.

3. From the pleadings of parties, following issues were framed:-“1. Whether Tilak Raj died on 6.10.1999 in road caused by the bus No.PB-23-3690 driven by respondent No.1 rashly and negligently on 6.10.1999 in the area of village Waraich ? OPP RAJEEV PUROHIT 2026.07.17 18:03 I am approving this 2. Whether the respondent No.1 was not holding valid document FAO-4801-2002 2 driving licence at the time of the accident ? OPR 3. Whether the applicants are entitled to the compensation. If so to what amount and from whom ? OPA 4. Relief.” 4. Thereafter, the parties led evidence in support of their case. 5. After hearing the parties and going through the material on the file, learned Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.3,40,000/- as compensation to the claimants alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of claim petition till realization. 6. Feeling aggrieved, the appeal in hand has been preferred. The material on file has been perused and parties have been heard. 7. It is pertinent to mention that the record of the present appeal and the Tribunal has got burnt in a fire incident in the High Court Registry and the present appeal has to be decided on the basis of the facts and evidence discussed by the Tribunal in the impugned Award.

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.1 while driving the offending vehicle bearing No.PB-23-3690, owned by respondent No.2 and insured with respondent No.3. No appeal or 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.3,40,000/- has been awarded is based on conjectures and surmises and is liable to be modified and enhancedRAJEEV PUROHIT 2026.07.17 18:03 I am approving this document FAO-4801-2002 3

amount of compensation should be awarded. Learned counsel contended that income of the deceased has been assessed on lower side. Future prospects have also not been added to the monthly income of the deceased contrary to settled provisions of law. 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. Vs. Satinder Kaur. 10. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.3 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 RAJEEV PUROHIT 2026.07.17 18:03 compensation. It has been further held that although the Act is a beneficial I am approving this document FAO-4801-2002 4 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. The claim petition has been instituted by the wife, 3 minor children and mother of the deceased. The version of the claimants is that deceased was a Press Reporter and was also running a milk diary and used to earn Rs.12,000/- to 13,000/- per month. However, no documentary evidence was lead to establish the business of milk diary and the version of claimant was thus rightly not believed by the Tribunal. However taking into consideration the identity card of the deceased as Press Reporter, learned Tribunal assessed his monthly income to Rs. 3,000/- per month by treating him to be a Press Reporter. However, Hon'ble Supreme Court in (2022) 1 SCC 198, Chandra alias Chander alias Chanda Ram and another Vs. Mukesh Kumar Yadav, decided vide judgment dated 01.10.2021 has held that merely because claimants are unable to produce documentary evidence to show the monthly income of the deceased is not a ground to discard the oral evidence and in such cases, the Court is required to ensure just compensation based on preponderance of probabilities. Minimum wage notification may serve as a yardstick but cannot be the sole basis for assessing the income. Moreover, it is also well settled that where the victim/deceased belongs to unorganized sector, strict proof of income is not RAJEEV PUROHIT 2026.07.17 18:03 mandatory and notional income can be reasonably assessed based on the I am approving this document FAO-4801-2002 5 social status and facts and circumstances of the case.

13. In the present case, the accident had taken place in year 1999 and deceased was a Press Reporter and he cannot be treated as a daily wager and some amount of guesswork has to be applied while assessing the monthly income as per social status of the deceased. Accordingly, his income is taken as Rs.4,000/- per month. 14. As per the driving licence of the deceased Ex.A-4, his date of birth was 20.04.1960 and the accident had taken place on 06.10.1999 and he was around 39 ½ years of age and as such, 40% 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.5,600/- (Rs.4,000/- + Rs.1,600/-). 15. Deceased has left behind five dependents i.e. wife, three minor children and mother and as such ¼ th 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.4,200/- (Rs.5,600/- – Rs.1,400/-) and the annual loss of dependency comes out to Rs.50,400/- (Rs.4,200/- × 12). 16. Since deceased was 39 and a half year of age, multiplier of 15 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.7,56,000/- (Rs.50,400 × 15).

17. In addition to this, claimant-Satnam Kaur (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 RAJEEV PUROHIT in Pranay Sethi’s case (supra). Likewise, three minor children and mother 2026.07.17 18:03 I am approving this document FAO-4801-2002 6 of the deceased are also held entitled to a sum of Rs.40,000/- each on account of loss of 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.9,86,000/-. 18. Accordingly, the compensation to be awarded to the appellants/claimants is assessed as under:-S.No. Heads Amount 1. Monthly income of deceased Rs.4,000/- per month 2. Age of deceased 39 ½ years 3. Future prospects @ 40% Rs.1,600/- 4. Total income Rs.5,600/- 5. Number of dependents 5 (wife, three minor children and mother) 6. Deduction towards personal expenses Rs.1,400/-of the deceased (¼ th) 7. Monthly loss of dependency Rs.4,200/- 8. Annual loss of dependency Rs.50,400/- (Rs.4,200 × 12) 9. Multiplier 15 10. Loss of dependency Rs.7,56,000/- (Rs.50,400 × 15) 11. Compensation under conventional Rs.70,000/-heads to claimant No.1- wife 12. Compensation to three minor children Rs.1,60,000/- (Rs.40,000 × 4) and mother (loss of parental and filial consortium) 13. Total Compensation Rs.9,86,000/-

14. Interest 9% 19. Resultantly, the appeal in hand is partly accepted with costs and claimants are held entitled to a sum of Rs.9,86,000/- as compensation. The enhanced compensation thus comes out to Rs.6,46,000/- (Rs.9,86,000/- − Rs.3,40,000/-) 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. 6.12.1999 till realization payable by respondents No.1 to 3 RAJEEV PUROHIT jointly and severally. Out of the enhanced compensation, a sum of2026.07.17 18:03 I am approving this document FAO-4801-2002 7 Rs.50,000/- each along with proportionate interest be paid to claimants No.2 to 5 (three minor children and mother of the deceased) while balance amount be paid to claimant No.1 (wife) along with proportionate interest. 20. 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 16.03.2021 and Insurance Company shall comply with the directions as issued under Clause (F) of the said judgment. 21. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. 16.07.2026 (YASHVIR SINGH RATHOR) Rajeev (rvs) JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No RAJEEV PUROHIT 2026.07.17 18:03 I am approving this document

FAO-4801-2002 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 275 FAO-4801-2002 (O&M) Date of decision: 16.07.2026 SATNAM KAUR AND ORS. ....Appellants Versus HARPAL SINGH AND ORS ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHVIR SINGH RATHOR Present : Mr. Daanish Mahajan, Advocate for the appellants. Mr. Vinod Gupta, Advocate and Mr. Armaan Gagneja, Advocate for Insurance Company. YASHVIR SINGH RATHOR. J.(Oral) 1. Learned counsel for respondent No. 3 appeared. A perusal of Award shows that learned Tribunal has held the owner, driver and insurer jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation. Therefore, there is no necessity to issue notice to owner and driver. Accordingly, issuance of notice to respondents No. 1 and 2 is dispensed with. 2. This appeal has been instituted by claimants against the Award dated 02.05.2002 decided by the MACT, Amritsar (for short “Tribunal”) passed in MACT case No.73 of 1999/2000 in a petition under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short ‘Act’) vide which a sum of Rs.3,40,000/- has been awarded as compensation to the claimants along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of claim petition till realization on account of death of Tilak Raj in a motor vehicle accident.

3. From the pleadings of parties, following issues were framed:-“1. Whether Tilak Raj died on 6.10.1999 in road caused by the bus No.PB-23-3690 driven by respondent No.1 rashly and negligently on 6.10.1999 in the area of village Waraich ? OPP RAJEEV PUROHIT 2026.07.17 18:03 I am approving this 2. Whether the respondent No.1 was not holding valid document FAO-4801-2002 2 driving licence at the time of the accident ? OPR 3. Whether the applicants are entitled to the compensation. If so to what amount and from whom ? OPA 4. Relief.” 4. Thereafter, the parties led evidence in support of their case. 5. After hearing the parties and going through the material on the file, learned Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.3,40,000/- as compensation to the claimants alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of claim petition till realization. 6. Feeling aggrieved, the appeal in hand has been preferred. The material on file has been perused and parties have been heard. 7. It is pertinent to mention that the record of the present appeal and the Tribunal has got burnt in a fire incident in the High Court Registry and the present appeal has to be decided on the basis of the facts and evidence discussed by the Tribunal in the impugned Award.

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.1 while driving the offending vehicle bearing No.PB-23-3690, owned by respondent No.2 and insured with respondent No.3. No appeal or 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.3,40,000/- has been awarded is based on conjectures and surmises and is liable to be modified and enhancedRAJEEV PUROHIT 2026.07.17 18:03 I am approving this document FAO-4801-2002 3

amount of compensation should be awarded. Learned counsel contended that income of the deceased has been assessed on lower side. Future prospects have also not been added to the monthly income of the deceased contrary to settled provisions of law. 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. Vs. Satinder Kaur. 10. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.3 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 RAJEEV PUROHIT 2026.07.17 18:03 compensation. It has been further held that although the Act is a beneficial I am approving this document FAO-4801-2002 4 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. The claim petition has been instituted by the wife, 3 minor children and mother of the deceased. The version of the claimants is that deceased was a Press Reporter and was also running a milk diary and used to earn Rs.12,000/- to 13,000/- per month. However, no documentary evidence was lead to establish the business of milk diary and the version of claimant was thus rightly not believed by the Tribunal. However taking into consideration the identity card of the deceased as Press Reporter, learned Tribunal assessed his monthly income to Rs. 3,000/- per month by treating him to be a Press Reporter. However, Hon'ble Supreme Court in (2022) 1 SCC 198, Chandra alias Chander alias Chanda Ram and another Vs. Mukesh Kumar Yadav, decided vide judgment dated 01.10.2021 has held that merely because claimants are unable to produce documentary evidence to show the monthly income of the deceased is not a ground to discard the oral evidence and in such cases, the Court is required to ensure just compensation based on preponderance of probabilities. Minimum wage notification may serve as a yardstick but cannot be the sole basis for assessing the income. Moreover, it is also well settled that where the victim/deceased belongs to unorganized sector, strict proof of income is not RAJEEV PUROHIT 2026.07.17 18:03 mandatory and notional income can be reasonably assessed based on the I am approving this document FAO-4801-2002 5 social status and facts and circumstances of the case.

13. In the present case, the accident had taken place in year 1999 and deceased was a Press Reporter and he cannot be treated as a daily wager and some amount of guesswork has to be applied while assessing the monthly income as per social status of the deceased. Accordingly, his income is taken as Rs.4,000/- per month. 14. As per the driving licence of the deceased Ex.A-4, his date of birth was 20.04.1960 and the accident had taken place on 06.10.1999 and he was around 39 ½ years of age and as such, 40% 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.5,600/- (Rs.4,000/- + Rs.1,600/-). 15. Deceased has left behind five dependents i.e. wife, three minor children and mother and as such ¼ th 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.4,200/- (Rs.5,600/- – Rs.1,400/-) and the annual loss of dependency comes out to Rs.50,400/- (Rs.4,200/- × 12). 16. Since deceased was 39 and a half year of age, multiplier of 15 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.7,56,000/- (Rs.50,400 × 15).

17. In addition to this, claimant-Satnam Kaur (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 RAJEEV PUROHIT in Pranay Sethi’s case (supra). Likewise, three minor children and mother 2026.07.17 18:03 I am approving this document FAO-4801-2002 6 of the deceased are also held entitled to a sum of Rs.40,000/- each on account of loss of 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.9,86,000/-. 18. Accordingly, the compensation to be awarded to the appellants/claimants is assessed as under:-S.No. Heads Amount 1. Monthly income of deceased Rs.4,000/- per month 2. Age of deceased 39 ½ years 3. Future prospects @ 40% Rs.1,600/- 4. Total income Rs.5,600/- 5. Number of dependents 5 (wife, three minor children and mother) 6. Deduction towards personal expenses Rs.1,400/-of the deceased (¼ th) 7. Monthly loss of dependency Rs.4,200/- 8. Annual loss of dependency Rs.50,400/- (Rs.4,200 × 12) 9. Multiplier 15 10. Loss of dependency Rs.7,56,000/- (Rs.50,400 × 15) 11. Compensation under conventional Rs.70,000/-heads to claimant No.1- wife 12. Compensation to three minor children Rs.1,60,000/- (Rs.40,000 × 4) and mother (loss of parental and filial consortium) 13. Total Compensation Rs.9,86,000/-

14. Interest 9% 19. Resultantly, the appeal in hand is partly accepted with costs and claimants are held entitled to a sum of Rs.9,86,000/- as compensation. The enhanced compensation thus comes out to Rs.6,46,000/- (Rs.9,86,000/- − Rs.3,40,000/-) 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. 6.12.1999 till realization payable by respondents No.1 to 3 RAJEEV PUROHIT jointly and severally. Out of the enhanced compensation, a sum of2026.07.17 18:03 I am approving this document FAO-4801-2002 7 Rs.50,000/- each along with proportionate interest be paid to claimants No.2 to 5 (three minor children and mother of the deceased) while balance amount be paid to claimant No.1 (wife) along with proportionate interest. 20. 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 16.03.2021 and Insurance Company shall comply with the directions as issued under Clause (F) of the said judgment. 21. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. 16.07.2026 (YASHVIR SINGH RATHOR) Rajeev (rvs) JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No RAJEEV PUROHIT 2026.07.17 18:03 I am approving this document