Angoori vs Harsad

1
FAO-4837-2002 (O&M) - -
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
227 FAO-4837-2002 (O&M)
Date of decision: 31.08.2026
ANGOORI AND ORS ....APPELLANTS
VERSUS
HARSAD AND ORS ...RESPONDENTS
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHVIR SINGH RATHOR
Present: Mr. Anuj Gupta, Advocate/Amicus Curiae
for the appellant.
Notice to respondents No.1 and 2 dispensed with.
Mr. Vinod Gupta, Advocate
for respondent No.3-Insurance Company.
*
YASHVIR SINGH RATHOR. J.(Oral)
The matter is being taken up in post lunch session.
1. 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.
2. This appeal has been instituted by claimants for enhancement of
compensation against the Award dated 08.08.2002 passed by MACT, Panipat ( for
short “Tribunal” ) in MACT case No.94 of 2000 in a petition under Section 166
of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short ‘Act’) vide which a sum of Rs.2,53,850/-
has been awarded as compensation to the claimants alongwith interest at the rate

of 9% per annum from the date of filing of claim petition till realization on
account of death of Pale Ram in a motor vehicular accident which took place on
01.09.2000 due to rash and negligent driving on the part of respondent No.1 while
VISHAL VARDHAN
2026.09.01 18:37
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

2
FAO-4837-2002 (O&M) - -
driving Truck bearing No.HR-38-E-0063 ( for short ‘offending vehicle’ ), owned
by respondents No.2 and insured with respondent No.3.
3. From the pleadings of parties, following issues were framed by the
learned Tribunal:-
“1. Whether the accident took place due to rash and negligent
driving of truck No.HR-38-E-0063 by respondent No.1? OPP
2. Whether the petitioners are entitled to compensation, if so, to
what amount and from whom? OPP
3. Whether the truck in question was being driven against the
terms and conditions of the insurance policy? OPR
4. Relief.”
4. Thereafter, the parties led evidence in support of their case.
5. After hearing the parties and on going through the material on the
file, learned Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.2,53,850/- as compensation to the
claimants along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of claim
petition till realization payable by respondents No.1 to 3 jointly and severally.
6. Feeling aggrieved, the appeal in hand has been preferred. The
material on file has been perused and parties have been heard.
7. The only issue required to be determined in the present appeal relates
to the assessment of compensation. Therefore, the entire facts of the case
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, owned by respondents No.2 and insured with respondent No.3.
No appeal or cross-objections have been filed by respondents, challenging the said
VISHAL VARDHAN
2026.09.01 18:37
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

3
FAO-4837-2002 (O&M) - -
finding and accordingly, finding on issue No.1 is not required to be interfered
with.
8. Learned counsel for the appellants argued that the impugned award
vide which compensation of Rs.2,53,850/- 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 contended that income of the
deceased has been assessed on lower side and future prospects have also not been
added to the monthly income of the deceased contrary to settled provisions of law.
Learned counsel next contended that deceased has left behind five dependents and
1/4th amount should have been deducted from his income towards personal
rd
expenses instead of 1/3 as has been done by the Tribunal. Learned counsel
further contended that compensation of Rs.10,000/- has been awarded for loss of
consortium, loss of estate and funeral expenses, which is on lower side and the
compensation should be suitably enhanced. In support of his contentions, learned
counsel 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 and
(2021) 11 SCC 780 , United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Satinder Kaur .
9. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent No.3 argued
that the adequate compensation has been awarded by the learned Tribunal and no
interference in the said award is called for and appeal in hand be dismissed.
10. Coming to the assessment of compensation, 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
VISHAL VARDHAN
2026.09.01 18:37
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

4
FAO-4837-2002 (O&M) - -
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.
11. The present claim petition was instituted by the wife, three children
and mother of deceased Pale Ram who died in the accident in question. Stand of
the claimants is that deceased was 40 years of age and he was working in Vishnu
Factory and used to earn Rs.4,000/- per month. To prove his income, claimants
have examined PW5 Mukesh Kumar, Accountant in M/s Vishnu Carpets, G.T.
Road, Panipat, who deposed that deceased Pale Ram was a tractor driver in the
said firm and was getting a salary of Rs.1,905/- per month vide salary certificate
Ex.P2. Learned Tribunal relied upon his version and assessed his income to be
Rs.1,905/- per month and there is thus no reason to take a contrary view.
VISHAL VARDHAN
2026.09.01 18:37
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

5
FAO-4837-2002 (O&M) - -
Accordingly, income of deceased is taken as Rs.1,905/- per month, which is
rounded off to Rs.1,900/- per month .
12. Tribunal has also held that the deceased was 40 years of age on the
basis of postmortem report Ex.P4. Since deceased was 40 years of age, 25%
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.2,375/- per month (Rs.1,900/- + Rs.475/-) .
13. The petition in hand has been instituted by the wife, three children
and mother of the deceased. Accordingly, it is held that deceased has left behind
five dependents and 1/4th of the income thus has to be deducted towards personal
and living expenses in view of law laid down in Sarla Verma’s case (supra) .
After deducting a sum of Rs.593/- towards personal expenses, the monthly loss of
dependency comes out to Rs.1,782/- (Rs.2,375/- - Rs.593/-) and the annual loss of
dependency comes out to Rs.21,384/- (Rs.1,782/- X 12) .
14. As per guidelines laid down in Sarla Verma’s case (supra) ,
multiplier of 15 has to be applied as deceased was 40 years of age and after
applying the same, the total loss of dependency comes to Rs.3,20,760/-
(Rs.21,384/- X 15).
15. 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 who are children and mother of deceased are also
held entitled to a sum of Rs.40,000/- each on account of loss of parental
consortium and loss of filial consortium , in view of law laid down in ‘Magma
VISHAL VARDHAN
2026.09.01 18:37
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

6
FAO-4837-2002 (O&M) - -
General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram’s case (supra) and United India
Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Satinder Kaur’s case (supra) , which takes the
compensation to Rs.5,50,760/- .
16. Accordingly, the compensation to be awarded to the
appellants/claimants is assessed as under:-
S.No. Under Head Compensation assessed by this
Court
1. Age of deceased 40 years
2. Monthly income of deceased Rs.1,900/- per month
3. Future prospects @ 25% Rs.475/-
4. Total income Rs.2,375/- per month
5. Number of dependents 5
6. Deduction towards personal expenses of Rs.593/-
the deceased (1/4th)
7. Monthly loss of dependency Rs.1,782/-
8. Annual loss of dependency Rs.21,384/-
(Rs.1,782/- X 12)
9. Multiplier 15
10. Compensation on account of Loss of Rs.3,20,760/-
dependency
11. Compensation under conventional heads Rs.70,000/-
to claimant No.1/wife
12. Loss of parental consortium to children
and loss of filial consortium to mother of
deceased
Rs.1,60,000/-
(Rs.40,000/- X 4)
Total Compensation Rs.5,50,760/-
Interest 9%
17. Resultantly, the appeal in hand is partly accepted with costs and
appellants/claimants are held entitled to a sum of Rs.5,50,760/- as compensation.
The enhanced compensation thus comes out to Rs.2,96,910/- (Rs.5,50,760/- -
VISHAL VARDHAN
2026.09.01 18:37
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

7
FAO-4837-2002 (O&M) - -
Rs.2,53,850/-) , which is rounded off to Rs.2,97,000/- over and above the
compensation awarded by the Tribunal alongwith interest at the rate of 9% per
annum from the date of filing of claim petition i.e. 22.09.2000, till realization
payable by respondents No.1 to 3 jointly and severally but the primary
responsibility shall be of the Insurance Company to satisfy the Award. Out of the
enhanced compensation, a sum of Rs.45,000/- each be paid to children and mother
of the deceased along with proportionate interest and remaining amount to
claimant No.1/wife along with proportionate interest.
18. Registry is directed to email the authenticated copy of the judgment
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.
19. Pending misc. application (s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.
31.08.2026 (YASHVIR SINGH RATHOR)
Vishal Vardhan JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned. : Yes/No
Whether reportable. : Yes/No
VISHAL VARDHAN
2026.09.01 18:37
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document