Devinder Kaur And Others vs Subhash Chander And Others

FAO-3142-2002 (O&M)

- 1 -

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
226
FAO-3142-2002 (O&M)
Date of decision: 08.09.2026
DEVINDER KAUR AND OTHERS ....Appellants
Versus
SUBHASH CHANDER AND OTHERS ...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHVIR SINGH RATHOR
Present : Mr. Shrey Sachdeva, Advocate for the appellants.
Respondent No.1 died.
Mr. S.K. Sharma, Senior Panel Counsel
for respondents No.2 and 3.
YASHVIR SINGH RATHOR. J.(Oral)
1. This appeal has been instituted by claimants for enhancement of
compensation against the Award dated 15.02.2002 decided by the MACT, Patiala
( for short “Tribunal” ) in MACT case No.135-T of 20.02.2001 in a petition under
Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ( for short ‘Act’ ) vide which a sum of
Rs.96,000/- 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 their son Lovejot Singh in a motor vehicle
accident.
2. From the pleadings of parties, following issues were framed:-
AMANDEEP GOSAIN
2026.09.10 09:09
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this
order/judgment

FAO-3142-2002 (O&M)

- 2 -

“1. Whether Lovejot Singh died in a motor vehicular accident on
10.03.2000 at about 7:40 a.m. on the Mall, Opp. Malwa Cinema,
Patiala, on account of rash and negligent driving of truck bearing
registration No.HPS-5716 by respondent No.1?OPA.
2. If issue No.1 above is proved, whether the claimants are
entitled to compensation, if so to what amount and from which of the
respondents?OPA.
3. Relief.”
3. Thereafter, the parties led evidence in support of their case.
4. After hearing the parties and going through the material on the file,
learned Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.96,000/- as compensation to the claimants
alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of claim petition till
realization.
5. Feeling aggrieved, the appeal in hand has been preferred. The
material on file has been perused and parties have been heard.
6. 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
truck bearing No.HPS-5716, 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.
7. Learned counsel for the appellants argued that the impugned award
AMANDEEP GOSAIN
2026.09.10 09:09
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this
order/judgment

FAO-3142-2002 (O&M)

- 3 -

vide which compensation of Rs.96,000/- 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 income of the deceased has
been assessed on lower side. Learned counsel further contends that future
prospects have not been added to the monthly income of the deceased contrary to
settled provisions of law. Learned counsel next contends that no compensation has
been awarded under conventional heads i.e. loss of consortium, loss of estate and
funeral expenses and he prayed that compensation be awarded under all the heads
and same 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, 2025 ACJ 1624 Karuna Parmar Vs. Prakash Sinha and others and 2024
SCC Online SC 3692, Baby Sakshi Greola Vs. Manzoor Ahmad Simon.
8. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondents No.2 and 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.
9. 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
AMANDEEP GOSAIN
2026.09.10 09:09
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this
order/judgment

FAO-3142-2002 (O&M)

- 4 -

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.
th
10. As per version of claimants, deceased was a student of 9 class and
was studying in Guru Nanak Foundation Public School, Patiala. The Tribunal after
going through the evidence on file awarded a lump sum compensation of
Rs.96,000/- to the claimants, payable by respondents No.1 to 3 jointly and
severally. Hon’ble Supreme Court in Karuna Parmar Vs. Prakash Sinha and
others (supra) while relying upon judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme
Court in Baby Sakshi Greola Vs. Manzoor Ahmad Simon (supra) has held that
minimum wages payable to a skilled worker in the concerned State have to be
taken into consideration while assessing income in the case of a child because that
would be the minimum amount which a child would have earned on attaining the
age of majority. In the present case, claimant was 15 years of age and was a
AMANDEEP GOSAIN
2026.09.10 09:09
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this
order/judgment

FAO-3142-2002 (O&M)

- 5 -

th
student of 9 class and the accident had taken place on 10.03.2000 and during
those days, minimum wages earned by a skilled person were around Rs.2,700/-
per month and accordingly, income of deceased is taken as Rs.2,700/- per month .
11. Deceased was 15 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.3,780/- (Rs.2,700/- + Rs.1,080/-) .
12. The present claim petition was instituted by parents of deceased
namely Lovejot Singh, aged 15 years, who died in the accident in question. As per
law laid down in 2025 Livelaw (SC) 309, Sadhana Tomar & Ors. Vs. Ashok
Kushwaha & Ors , father has to be treated as financially dependent upon his
deceased son. Accordingly, it is held that deceased has left behind two dependents.
Deceased was a bachelor and as such, 50% of the income has to be deducted
towards personal and living expenses in view of law laid down in Sarla Verma’s
case (supra) . After deducting the same, the monthly loss of dependency comes
out to Rs.1,890/- and the annual loss of dependency comes out to Rs.22,680/-.
13. Hon’ble Supreme Court while deciding Civil Appeal No.14756 of
2025 titled Devendra Kumar Tripathi & Ors. v. The Oriental Insurance
Company Ltd. & Anr. vide judgment dated 15.12.2025, while distinguishing the
judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Baby Sakshi Greola’s case
(supra) , has held that in cases involving the death of a minor child, the claim for
compensation stands on a different footing from cases relating to permanent
disability suffered by a minor. Relying upon the principle laid down in (2013) 9
SCC 65, Reshma Kumari v. Madan Mohan , Hon’ble Supreme Court held that
AMANDEEP GOSAIN
2026.09.10 09:09
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this
order/judgment

FAO-3142-2002 (O&M)

- 6 -

for determining compensation in cases of fatal accidents involving minors, the
appropriate multiplier is 15 and not 18, which was applied in Baby Sakshi
Greola’s case(supra) in the context of permanent disability. Accordingly, in the
present case, multiplier of 15 has to be applied for assessing the loss of
dependency in view of the guidelines laid down in Devendra Kumar Tripathi’s
case (supra) and the total loss of dependency comes out to Rs.3,40,200/-
(Rs.22,680/- × 15).
14. In addition to this, claimant No.2 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,
claimant No.1 is also held entitled to a sum of Rs.40,000/- 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.4,50,200/- .
15. Accordingly, the compensation to be awarded to the claimants is
assessed as under:-
S. No. Heads Amount
1. Age of deceased 15 years
2. Monthly income of deceased Rs.2,700/-
3. Monthly income after addition of 40% Rs.3,780/-
future prospects
4. Deduction of 50% towards personal and Rs.1,890/-
living expenses
5. Monthly loss of dependency Rs.1,890/-
6. Annual loss of dependency (Rs.1,890/- × Rs.22,680/-
12)
7. Multiplier 15
8. Loss of dependency (Rs.22,680/- × 15) Rs.3,40,200/-
9. Rs.70,000/-
Compensation under conventional
heads to claimant No.2
AMANDEEP GOSAIN
2026.09.10 09:09
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this
order/judgment

FAO-3142-2002 (O&M)

- 7 -

10. Loss of filial consortium to claimants Rs.40,000/-
No.1
11. Total compensation
Rs.4,50,200/-
(Rounded off to
Rs.4,50,000/-)
12. Interest 9%

16. Resultantly, the appeal in hand is partly accepted with costs and
claimants are held entitled to a sum of Rs.4,50,000/- as compensation. The
enhanced compensation thus comes out to Rs.3,54,000/- (Rs.4,50,000/- -
Rs.96,000/-) 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 till
realization payable by respondents No.1 to 3 jointly and severally. The enhanced
compensation of Rs.3,54,000/- be paid to claimants (mother and father of the
deceased) in equal shares alongwith proportionate interest.
17. Registry is directed to email the authenticated copy of this
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.
18. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand
disposed of.
(YASHVIR SINGH RATHOR)
08.09.2026 JUDGE
amandeep
Whether speaking/reasoned. : Yes/No
Whether Reportable. : Yes/No
AMANDEEP GOSAIN
2026.09.10 09:09
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this
order/judgment