Ajit Singh vs Duli Chand And Ors.
- Court
- Punjab and Haryana High Court
FAO-425-2005 (O&M) -1-
FAO-426-2005 (O&M)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
Date of decision: 09.09.2026
235-1 FAO-425-2005 (O&M)
AJIT SINGH
..... Appellant
VERSUS
DULI CHAND AND OTHERS
..... Respondents
235-2 FAO-426-2005 (O&M)
PHOOLWATI AND OTHERS
....Appellants
VERSUS
DULI CHAND AND OTHERS
...Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHVIR SINGH RATHOR
Present: Mr. Sandeep Jasuja, Advocate (through V.C.) with
Mr. Surender Kumar Sharma, Advocate
for the appellants in both cases.
Service of respondents No.1 and 2
is dispensed with.
Mr. Maninder Arora, Advocate and
Mr. Suvir Dewan, Advocate
for respondent No.3-United India Insurance Company
in both cases.
*
YASHVIR SINGH RATHOR. J.(Oral)
1. This judgment shall dispose of above noted appeals, as the same have
PRIYANKA THAKUR
2026.09.11 16:19
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
FAO-425-2005 (O&M) -2-
FAO-426-2005 (O&M)
emanated out of the same accident.
2. The record of the present cases was destroyed in a fire incident in the
High Court Registry. Learned counsel for the appellants/claimants has placed on
file copy of record of Tribunal, which is taken on record. Registry is directed to
tag the same at an appropriate place.
3. A perusal of the Award shows that respondents No.1 to 3 i.e. owner,
driver and insurer of the offending vehicle, have been held liable to pay
compensation jointly and severally. As such, there is no necessity to issue notice
to respondents No.1 and 2 as respondent No.3–Insurance Company is already
represented through its counsel. Accordingly, issuance of notice to respondents
No.1 and 2 is dispensed with.
4. The aforesaid two appeals have been instituted by the claimants for
enhancement of compensation against the Award dated 20.09.2004 passed by
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Gurgaon ( for short “Tribunal” ) in MACT
Case No.325 of 10.12.2001 and MACT Case No.324 of 10.12.2001 in the
petitions under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short “Act”) , vide
which a sum of Rs.2,38,500/- has been awarded as compensation to the
claimant/appellant-Ajit Singh on account of injuries suffered by him and a sum of
Rs.3,14,000/- has been awarded as compensation to the claimants/appellants-
Phoolwati etc. on account of death of Ramesh in a motor vehicular accident due to
rash and negligent driving on the part of respondent No.2, while driving the
offending Tata-407 bearing No.HR-47-0581 ( hereinafter referred to as
offending vehicle ), owned by respondent No.1 and insured with respondent No.3.
PRIYANKA THAKUR
2026.09.11 16:19
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
FAO-425-2005 (O&M) -3-
FAO-426-2005 (O&M)
5. From the pleadings of parties, following issues were framed by
learned Tribunal:-
1. Whether Ajit Singh claimant has received injuries and
Ramesh son of Harnam Singh has died in an accident
with vehicle No.HR-47-0581, as alleged? OPP
2. To what amount of compensation, if any, and from
whom the claimants are entitled? OPP
3. Whether the vehicle was being driven by a person
holding no valid and effective driving licence? OPR.
4. Relief.
6 . Thereafter, the parties led evidence in support of their respective
cases.
7. After hearing the parties and on going through the material on the
file, learned Tribunal awarded the compensation as mentioned in para No.4 of this
judgment along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim
petitions till realization payable by respondents No.1 to 3, jointly and severally.
8. Feeling aggrieved, the appeals in hand have been preferred by
claimants. The material on file has been perused and parties have been heard.
9. The only issue required to be determined in the present appeals
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.2 while driving the offending
vehicle owned by respondent No.1 and insured with respondent No.3. No appeal
PRIYANKA THAKUR
2026.09.11 16:19
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
FAO-425-2005 (O&M) -4-
FAO-426-2005 (O&M)
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 and the
same is affirmed.
10. Learned counsel for the appellant in FAO-425-2005 argued that the
Tribunal has not appreciated the facts of the case and evidence on file in the
correct perspective while assessing the compensation which is grossly inadequate.
The claimant had suffered 30% permanent disability and he has been awarded a
total compensation of Rs.2,38,500/- for expenses incurred on treatment, pain and
suffering, loss of income during treatment, special diet, attendant charges,
transportation and permanent disability. Learned counsel further argued that
adequate compensation has not been awarded under pecuniary and non-pecuniary
heads and same is liable to be suitably enhanced.
11. Learned counsel for the claimants in FAO-426-2005 argued that
impugned award vide which compensation 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 further contended that the
income of the deceased has been assessed on the lower side. Future prospects have
also not been added to the monthly income of the deceased, contrary to the settled
provisions of law. A sum of Rs.2,000/- each has been awarded under the
conventional heads, i.e. loss of estate and funeral expenses and a sum of
Rs.2,500/- has been awarded under loss of consortium, which is grossly
inadequate and he prayed that compensation be suitably enhanced. In support of
his contentions, learned counsel has relied upon 2014 (1) RCR (Civil) 914 Sanjay
PRIYANKA THAKUR
2026.09.11 16:19
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
FAO-425-2005 (O&M) -5-
FAO-426-2005 (O&M)
Verma Vs. Haryana Roadways, 2009(6) SCC 121 Sarla Verma and others Vs.
Delhi Transport Corporation and Another and 2017 (16) SCC 680 National
Insurance Co. Ltd Vs. Pranay Sethi and Others , 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.
12. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.3 argued that
the award in question is well reasoned and justified. The material on files has been
appreciated in the correct perspective while assessing the compensation and no
interference in the same is thus called for.
Analysis and assessment of compensation in FAO-425-2005 , Ajit Singh Versus
Duli Chand and Others , arising out of MACT Case No.325 of 10.12.2001 :-
13. Coming to the assessment of compensation, the law is well settled
that the compensation to be awarded for injuries suffered by claimant in a motor
vehicular accident should be just and equitable. Courts have consistently held that
while money cannot erase the pain, suffering, or trauma but it is the only legal
means to provide restitution and restore the victim to his previous position as far
as possible for which ‘just compensation’ has to be assessed. It is also well settled
that while it is impossible to fully compensate for the loss of limb, life, or quality
of life, the compensation must be ‘Just’, meaning thereby, that it should be fair,
reasonable, and equitable based on the evidence and not merely a ‘Windfall’ or a
‘Pittance’. The core objective is to put the injured/victim in the same position he
would have been if the accident had not taken place, to the extent money can do
PRIYANKA THAKUR
2026.09.11 16:19
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
FAO-425-2005 (O&M) -6-
FAO-426-2005 (O&M)
so. This approach ensures that the law provides a realistic recompense for the
trauma endured, rather than just providing normal relief.
14. Hon'ble Supreme Court in 2013 (3) RCR (Civil) 934 -
G.Ravindranath @ R. Chowdary Vs. E. Srinivas and another , has held that in
a case of accident resulting in injuries to the victim, the compensation in personal
injury cases should be determined under the following heads:-
Pecuniary damages (Special damages)
(i) Expenses relating to treatment, hospitalization, medicines,
transportation, nourishing expenditure, food and miscellaneous
(ii) Loss of earnings (and other gains) which the injured would have
made had he not been injured, comprising:
(a) Loss of earning during the period of treatment;
(b) Loss of future earnings on account of permanent disability
(iii) Future medical expenses.
Non-pecuniary damages (General damages)
(iv) Damages for pain, suffering and trauma as a consequence of the
injuries.
(v) Loss of amenities (and/or loss of prospects of marriage).
(vi) Loss of expectation of life (shortening of normal longevity).
In routine personal injury cases, compensation will be awarded under
heads (i), (ii) (a) and (iv) It is only in serious cases of injury, where there is
specific medical evidence corroborating the evidence of the claimant that
compensation will be granted under any of the heads (ii) (b), (iii), (v) and (vi)
PRIYANKA THAKUR
2026.09.11 16:19
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
FAO-425-2005 (O&M) -7-
FAO-426-2005 (O&M)
relating to loss of future earnings on account of permanent disability, future
medical expenses, loss of amenities (and/or loss of prospects of marriage) and loss
of expectation of life.
15. As per version of claimant Ajit Singh, who appeared as PW6, he had
suffered multiple injuries in the accident in question. He was taken to Government
Hospital, Rewari where he was medico-legally examined vide MLR Ex.P44.
Thereafter, he was referred to Safdarjung Hospital, New Delhi but he got himself
admitted at Gitanjali Hospital, Pataudi on 03.11.2001 and remained admitted there
upto 11.11.2001 as he had suffered several injuries including fracture in his leg.
Thereafter, he took treatment from Raj Hospital, Singhana from 29.10.2002 to
10.12.2002 where he was operated upon on 18.11.2002 and his plaster was
removed on 25.03.2003. He claimed to have incurred an amount of more than
Rs.1,00,000/- on his treatment.
16. To prove the injuries suffered by him and the amount spent on
treatment, claimant has examined PW1 Satpal Singh from Gitanjali Hospital,
Pataudi, who deposed that hospital had charged a sum of Rs.23,200/- from the
claimant vide bill Ex.P1 and he also proved receipt Ex.P2 for Rs.220/-. Claimant
has also led in evidence discharge summary of the hospital Ex.P3 from which it is
established that claimant had suffered injuries including subtrochantric fracture
femur (right) and he remained admitted in the said hospital from 03.11.2001 to
11.11.2001 and was operated upon on 05.11.2001 when a plate was inserted and
bone grafting was done.
17. PW2 Anil Kumar from Raj Hospital, Singhana has proved documents
PRIYANKA THAKUR
2026.09.11 16:19
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
FAO-425-2005 (O&M) -8-
FAO-426-2005 (O&M)
Ex.P4 to Ex.P41 and discharge summary Ex.P42 issued by the hospital. From the
discharge summary, it is established that claimant remained admitted in the said
hospital from 29.10.2002 to 10.12.2002 where he was again operated upon on
08.11.2002 as the plate inserted in his right femur bone had broken and
de-bridgement of the wound was done and traction was also applied.
18. As such, from the testimony of aforesaid witnesses, it is established
that claimant could not be cured properly and remained under treatment up to
25.02.2003 due to fracture on his femur (right) and he underwent surgeries in the
hospitals at Pataudi and Singhana.
19. Learned Tribunal has awarded him a sum of Rs.50,000/- as
compensation on account of pain and sufferings, which in my opinion is grossly
inadequate. It is a matter of common knowledge that pain component in such
injuries is enormous which take a considerable time to heal and taking into
consideration, the severity of injuries, pain component involved specially due to
surgical interventions and long duration of treatment, claimant is held entitled to a
sum of Rs.70,000/- on account of ‘pain and sufferings’ .
20. From the evidence led by claimant and discharge summaries placed
on file, it is established that claimant remained under treatment for about 16
months and as such, he would not have been able to do his job. Claimant has
deposed that he was getting salary of Rs.2,600/- per month while working on
daily wages with M.C.D., Delhi and he also used to earn another sum of
Rs.1,000/- or Rs.1,500/- per month by doing a part-time job but the Tribunal has
ignored his testimony in the absence of any record from M.C.D., Delhi and
PRIYANKA THAKUR
2026.09.11 16:19
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
FAO-425-2005 (O&M) -9-
FAO-426-2005 (O&M)
assessed his monthly income to be Rs.2,100 per month. No doubt, 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 mandatory and notional income
can be reasonably assessed based on the social status and facts and circumstances
of the case.
21. In the present case, the accident had taken place on 02.11.2001 and
some amount of guesswork thus has to be applied in assessing the monthly income
of the claimant. The version of claimant that he was getting a sum of Rs.2,600/-
per month while working with M.C.D. as a daily wager cannot be disbelieved as
even labourers used to earn around Rs.2,600/- or Rs.2,700/- per month during
those days. Accordingly, the income of claimant is taken as Rs.2,600/- per month
as pleaded by him.
22. In the disability certificate Ex.P43, the age of claimant is mentioned
as 21 years. This disability certificate was issued on 03.09.2003 and accident had
taken place on 02.11.2001, on which date, the claimant was around 19 years of
age. Accordingly, it is held that claimant was 19 years of age and as such, 40%
PRIYANKA THAKUR
2026.09.11 16:19
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
FAO-425-2005 (O&M) -10-
FAO-426-2005 (O&M)
amount has to be added to his monthly income towards future prospects in view of
the law laid down in Sanjay Verma’s case (supra) and Pranay Sethi’s case
(supra) , which brings his income to Rs.3,640/- per month ( Rs.2,600/- +
Rs.1,040/- ).
23. As per testimony of PW Dr. Subhash Sindhu, who was member of the
board of doctors constituted by Civil Surgeon, claimant has suffered 30%
disability qua right lower limb on account of post traumatic right femur with
shortening of leg by two inches with moderate restriction of right knee joint
movement. As such, the disability suffered by the claimant, who was a daily wage
worker/labourer, shall certainly diminish his earning capability. The compensation
under the head ‘loss of income’ thus has to be assessed keeping in view the
percentage by which his earning capability has been diminished and by applying a
suitable multiplier in view of law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in 2010(4)
PLR 242 Yadava Kumar Vs. The Divisional Manager, National Insurance
Company Limited. Since, claimant has suffered 30% permanent disability, the
monthly loss of income will thus come to Rs.1,092/- ( Rs.3,640/- × 30% ) and the
annual loss of income will come to Rs. 13,104 /- per annum (Rs. 1,092/- × 12). In
view of law laid down in Pranay Sethi’s case (supra) and Sarla Verma’s case
(supra), multiplier of 18 has to be applied to the loss of income, which takes the
compensation to Rs.2,35,872/- (Rs.13,104/- × 18) on account of ‘ loss of income ’
due to permanent disability .
24. It must have taken at least 16 months for the injuries to heal. During
this period of 16 months, the claimant would not have been able to do any work
PRIYANKA THAKUR
2026.09.11 16:19
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
FAO-425-2005 (O&M) -11-
FAO-426-2005 (O&M)
and must have suffered loss of income. Accordingly, he is entitled to
compensation of Rs.41,600/- (Rs.2,600/- X 16) for ‘ loss of income during
treatment ’ as against Rs.33,600/- awarded by the Tribunal.
25. Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.15,000/- towards special diet,
conveyance and in engaging an attendant, which is grossly inadequate. Claimant
remained under treatment for 16 months and during this period, he must have
spent huge amount on his nutritious diet, in engaging an attendant and on
transportation. Accordingly, he is held entitled to a sum of Rs.15,000/- for the
expenses incurred on special diet , a sum of Rs.20,000/ - for engaging an
attendant and a sum of Rs.10,000/- on account of expenses incurred on
transportation .
26. The Tribunal has awarded him a sum of Rs.39,776/- for the expenses
incurred on treatment as per bills produced by the claimant. However, it is a matter
of common knowledge that patients or their attendants do not preserve all the bills
including those relating to physiotherapy and allied treatment and some amount of
guesswork has to be applied while assessing the ‘expenses incurred on treatment’.
Accordingly, claimant is held entitled to a sum of Rs.50,000/- as compensation on
account of expenses incurred on treatment and for future treatment .
27. The claimant was 19 years of age at the time of the accident and has
suffered 30% permanent disability qua the right lower limb on account of post-
traumatic injury to the right femur, resulting in shortening of the leg by two inches
and moderate restriction of movement of the right knee joint. The disability
suffered by him is permanent and will adversely affect his normal life including
PRIYANKA THAKUR
2026.09.11 16:19
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
FAO-425-2005 (O&M) -12-
FAO-426-2005 (O&M)
his ability to walk, run, sit and lift weight besides adversely affecting his marriage
prospects . Considering the nature and extent of disability, he is held entitled to a
sum of Rs.50,000/- under the heads of ‘loss of amenities of life i.e. discomfort,
inconvenience, hardship and loss of expectancy of life ’ and ‘loss of marriage
prospects’.
28. Resultantly, the compensation to be awarded to the claimant is
assessed as under:-
Compensation assessed by
Sr. No. Head of Compensation
this Court
1 Pain and sufferings Rs.70,000/-
Expenses incurred on treatment and for
2 Rs.50,000/-
future treatment
Rs.20,000/-
3 Attendant charges
Rs.15,000/-
4 Special diet
Rs.10,000/-
5 Transportation charges
Loss of future income due to permanent
Rs.2,35,872/-
6
disability
Rs.41,600/-
7 Loss of income during treatment
Loss of amenities in life and marriage
8 Rs.50,000/-
prospects
Rs.4,92,472/- (rounded off to
Total
Rs.4,92,500/-)
29. Resultantly, claimant is held entitled to a sum of Rs.4,92,500/- as
compensation. The enhanced compensation thus comes out to Rs.2,54,000/-
(Rs.4,92,500/- – Rs.2,38,500/-).
Analysis and assessment of compensation in FAO-426-2005 , Phoolwati and
others Versus Duli Chand and Others , arising out of MACT Case No.324 of
10.12.2001 :-
PRIYANKA THAKUR
2026.09.11 16:19
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
FAO-425-2005 (O&M) -13-
FAO-426-2005 (O&M)
30. 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
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.
31. As per version of claimants, deceased was a camel cart puller, which
was owned by him. He was 35 years of age and he used to earn around Rs.7,000/-
per month. Claimant, who appeared as PW3, stated that deceased used to purchase
fodder at cheaper rates and used to sell the same at Gurgaon on higher rates after
transporting the same on his camel cart for the last 15 years. Claimants had also
PRIYANKA THAKUR
2026.09.11 16:19
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
FAO-425-2005 (O&M) -14-
FAO-426-2005 (O&M)
placed on file a copy of Award dated 08.04.1993 passed by MACT, Gurgaon in
case titled as Ramesh Kumar Versus Indraj and others, wherein it was held that
deceased Ramesh was a camel cart puller. As such, it is established that deceased
used to ply a camel cart for transporting goods. However, the Tribunal did not rely
upon the testimony of claimants and held the income of deceased to be
Rs.2,100/- per month as per minimum wages paid to a casual labourer. However,
income of deceased could not have been assessed by treating him to be a casual
labourer as he used to ply his own camel cart. As per law laid down in Chandra
alias Chander alias Chanda Ram’s case (supra) , some amount of guess work has
to be applied while assessing the income . In the present case, the accident had
taken place on 02.11.2001 and deceased owned a camel cart which he used to ply
for transportation of goods or for bringing fodder from other areas to Gurgaon for
selling the same at Gurgaon. As such, some amount of guesswork has to be
applied while assessing the income of deceased and it can thus be assumed that
deceased must have been earning at least Rs.3000/- per month.
32. The Tribunal has held that deceased was 35 years of age and
accordingly, 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.4,200/- (Rs.3,000/- + Rs.1,200/-).
33. The claim petition has been filed by wife and two children of the
deceased. Accordingly, it is held that deceased has left behind three dependents
and 1/3rd 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
PRIYANKA THAKUR
2026.09.11 16:19
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
FAO-425-2005 (O&M) -15-
FAO-426-2005 (O&M)
deducting the same, the monthly loss of dependency comes out to Rs.2,800/-
(Rs.4,200/- − Rs.1,400/-) and the annual loss of dependency comes out to
Rs.33,600/- (Rs.2,800/- × 12) to which multiplier of 16 has to be applied as per
law laid down in Sarla Verma’s case (supra) and the total loss of dependency
comes out to Rs.5,37,600/- (Rs.33,600/- × 16).
34. 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 and 3 (children of the deceased) are also held entitled
to a sum of Rs.40,000/- each on account of loss of parental 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.6,87,600/- ( Rs.5,37,600/- + Rs.1,50,000/-).
35. Accordingly, the compensation to be awarded to the
appellants/claimants is assessed as under:-
Sr. No. Head of Compensation Compensation Assessed by this
Court
1. Age of deceased 35 years
2. Monthly income of deceased Rs.3,000/- per month
3. Future prospects @40% Rs.1,200/-
4. Total income Rs.4,200/-
5. Number of dependents 3
Rs.1,400/-
6. Deduction towards personal
expenses of the deceased (1/3rd)
7. Monthly loss of dependency Rs.2,800/-
8. Annual loss of dependency Rs.33,600/- (Rs.2,800/- × 12)
PRIYANKA THAKUR
2026.09.11 16:19
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
FAO-425-2005 (O&M) -16-
FAO-426-2005 (O&M)
9. Multiplier 16
10. Loss of dependency Rs.5,37,600/- (Rs.33,600/- × 16)
11. Compensation under conventional Rs.70,000/-
heads to claimant No.1- wife
12. Compensation to claimants No.2 Rs.40,000/- each
and 3 (children of the deceased)
Total Compensation Rs.6,87,600/-
36. Resultantly, claimant is held entitled to a sum of Rs.6,87,600/- as
compensation. The enhanced compensation thus comes out to Rs.3,73,600/-
( Rs.6,87,600/- - Rs.3,14,000/- ) (rounded off to Rs.3,74,000/-).
37. As a result of afore-said discussion, appeals bearing FAO-425-2005
filed by the claimant Ajit Singh and FAO-426-2005 filed by claimant Phoolwati
etc. are partly accepted with costs.
38. Claimant Ajit Singh in FAO-425-2005 is held entitled to a sum of
Rs.2,54,000/- as enhanced compensation 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. 10.12.2001 till realization payable by
respondents No.1 to 3, jointly and severally.
39. Claimants Phoolwati etc. in FAO-426-2005 are held entitled to a sum
of Rs.3,74,000/- as enhanced compensation 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. 10.12.2001 till realization payable by
respondents No.1 to 3 jointly and severally. Out of the enhanced compensation, a
sum of 75,000/- each along with proportionate interest be paid to claimants No.2
PRIYANKA THAKUR
2026.09.11 16:19
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
FAO-425-2005 (O&M) -17-
FAO-426-2005 (O&M)
and 3 (children of deceased) while remaining amount be paid to claimant No.1
(wife of the deceased) along with proportionate interest.
40. 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.
41. Pending misc. application (s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.
42. A photocopy of this order be placed on the file of connected case.
(YASHVIR SINGH RATHOR)
09.09.2026 JUDGE
Priyanka Thakur
Whether speaking/reasoned. : Yes/No
Whether Reportable. : Yes/No
PRIYANKA THAKUR
2026.09.11 16:19
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document