Prabha And Ors. vs Jaspal Singh And Ors.

FAO-2182-2002 (O&M) -1-
FAO-2183-2002(O&M)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH

Date of Decision: 31.08.2026
(214-1) FAO-2182-2002 (O&M)
VIJAY KUMARI
....Appellant
VERSUS
JASPAL SINGH AND OTHERS
...Respondents
(214-2) FAO-2183-2002(O&M)
SHRIMATI PRABHA AND OTHERS

....Appellants
VERSUS
JASPAL SINGH AND OTHERS
...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHVIR SINGH RATHOR
Present : Mr. Amandeep Singh Gill, Advocate
for the appellants.
Mr. Sanjiv Pabbi, Advocate
for respondent No.3-Insurance Company

YASHVIR SINGH RATHOR , J.
1. By this judgment, I shall dispose of the aforesaid two
appeals as the same have 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 record copies of the grounds of
PRIYANKA THAKUR
2026.09.03 19:26
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

FAO-2182-2002 (O&M) -2-
FAO-2183-2002(O&M)
appeal, memo of parties and copy of judgment passed by MACT,
Kapurthala, which are taken on record. Registry is directed to tag the
same at an appropriate place on the record.
3. The present appeals have been filed by the claimants
seeking enhancement of compensation. A perusal of the Award shows that
the liability of respondents No.1 to 3 was held to be joint and several and
since, the liability of the respondents is joint and several, there is no
necessity to issue notice to respondents No.1 and 2, who are the driver
and owner, respectively, of the offending vehicle. Accordingly, issuance
of notice to respondents No.1 and 2 is dispensed with.
4. The aforesaid two appeals have been instituted by claimants
for enhancement of compensation against the Award dated 07.01.2002
passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kapurthala ( for short
“Tribunal” ) in MACT case No.45 of 23.08.1999 and MACT Case
No.46 of 23.08.1999 in the petitions under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles
Act, 1988 (for short “Act”) , vide which a sum of Rs.1,72,800/- has been
awarded as compensation to the claimant/appellant- Vijay Kumari on
account of death of Varun Sharma and a sum of Rs.2,01,600/- has been
awarded as compensation to the claimants/appellants- Shrimati Prabha
etc. on account of death of Surabh Sharma in a motor vehicular accident
due to the rash and negligent driving on the part of respondent No.1,
while driving Truck bearing No.PB-11-B-5746 ( hereinafter referred to
as offending vehicle ), owned by respondent No.2 and insured with
respondent No.3.
PRIYANKA THAKUR
2026.09.03 19:26
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

FAO-2182-2002 (O&M) -3-
FAO-2183-2002(O&M)
5. From the pleadings of parties, following issues were framed
by learned Tribunal in MACT Case No.45 of 23.08.1999:-
“1. Whether the petitioner is the dependent of Varun
Sharma deceased?
2. Whether Varun Sharma has died in the accident which
is alleged to have been caused by Jaspal Singh while
driving the offending vehicle rashly and negligently?
3. Whether the petitioner is entitled to compensation, if
so, to what extent and from whom?
4. Whether the driver was having a valid driving
licence?
5. Relief.”
6. The following issues were framed by learned Tribunal in
MACT Case No.46 of 23.08.1999:-
“1. Whether the petitioners are the dependents of Surabh
Sharma deceased?
2. Whether Surabh Sharma has died in the accident
which is alleged to have been caused by Jaspal Singh
while driving the offending vehicle rashly and
negligently?
3. Whether the petitioners are entitled to compensation,
if so, to what extent and from whom?
4. Whether the driver was having valid driving
licence?
5. Relief.”
7. Thereafter, the parties led evidence in support of their case.
8. After hearing the parties and going through the material on
the file, learned Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.1,72,800/- as
PRIYANKA THAKUR
2026.09.03 19:26
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

FAO-2182-2002 (O&M) -4-
FAO-2183-2002(O&M)
compensation on account of death of Varun Sharma to the claimant Vijay
Kumari and a sum of Rs.2,01,600/- as compensation on account of death
of Surabh Sharma to the claimants Shrimati Prabha etc. 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.
9. Feeling aggrieved, the appeals in hand have been preferred
by claimants. The material on file has been perused and parties have been
heard.
10. 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.2
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.PB-11-B-5746, 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.2 is not required to be interfered with and the same is affirmed.
11. Learned counsel for the appellants in both appeals argued
that the impugned award vide which compensation of Rs.1,72,800/- and
Rs.2,01,600/- on account of death of Varun Sharma and Surabh Sharma
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
PRIYANKA THAKUR
2026.09.03 19:26
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

FAO-2182-2002 (O&M) -5-
FAO-2183-2002(O&M)
assessed on lower side and future prospects have not been added to the
monthly income of the deceased contrary to settled provisions of law.
Learned counsel contended that the Tribunal has applied multiplier of 12,
whereas multiplier of 18 ought to have been applied to the loss of
dependency. Likewise, compensation has not been awarded under
conventional heads i.e. ‘loss of consortium’, `loss of estate’ and ‘funeral
expenses’ and he prayed that compensation be duly 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 and 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.
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 file has been appreciated in the correct perspective while
assessing the compensation and no interference in the same is thus called
for.
13. 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.
PRIYANKA THAKUR
2026.09.03 19:26
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

FAO-2182-2002 (O&M) -6-
FAO-2183-2002(O&M)
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.
Analysis and assessment of compensation in FAO-2182-2002 , Vijay
Kumari Vs Jaspal Singh and others , arising out of MACT Case No.45
of 23.08.1999 :-
14. The present claim petition was instituted by claimant Vijay
Kumari, who is the mother of deceased namely Varun Sharma. S tand of
claimant is that deceased was her only son, who was 17 years of age. He
was studying in 10+2 and had died in the accident. Learned Tribunal
PRIYANKA THAKUR
2026.09.03 19:26
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

FAO-2182-2002 (O&M) -7-
FAO-2183-2002(O&M)
assessed his income to be Rs.1600/- per month and after deducting one-
third amount towards personal expenses, the loss of dependency was
assessed as Rs.1,200/- per month. Thereafter, Tribunal applied multiplier
of 12 and awarded a sum of Rs.1,72,800/- as compensation to the
claimant. However, the compensation assessed by the Tribunal is grossly
inadequate.
15. Hon’ble Supreme Court in Karuna Parmar’s case (supra)
while relying upon judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in
Baby Sakshi Greola’s case (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 death 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, deceased was
17 years of age and the accident had taken place on 07.07.1999 and
during those days, minimum wages earned by a skilled person were
around Rs.2,500/- per month and accordingly, income of deceased is
taken as Rs.2,500/- per month .
16. Since deceased was 17 years of age, 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.3,500/- per month (Rs.2,500/- + Rs.1,000/-).
17. Deceased was a bachelor and has left behind only one
dependent i.e. his mother. As such, 50% of the income has to be deducted
towards personal and living expenses as per law laid down in Sarla
PRIYANKA THAKUR
2026.09.03 19:26
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

FAO-2182-2002 (O&M) -8-
FAO-2183-2002(O&M)
Verma’s case (supra) and after deducting the same, the monthly loss of
dependency comes out to Rs.1,750/- (Rs.3,500/- − Rs.1,750/-) and the
annual loss of dependency comes out to Rs.21,000/- (Rs.1,750/- X 12) to
which multiplier of 18 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.3,78,000/- (Rs.21,000/- x 18).
18. As per law laid down in Pranay Sethi’s case (supra), a sum
of Rs.70,000/- is payable towards 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. However, the judgment in
Pranay Sethi’s case (supra) was passed in the year 2017 and taking into
consideration the price index prevalent in the year 199 9 when the
accident took place, claimant, who is mother of deceased is held entitled
to a sum of Rs.30,000/- towards loss of consortium , Rs.10,000/- for
funeral expenses and Rs.10,000/- for loss of estate , which takes the
compensation to Rs.4,28,000/- ( Rs.3,78,000/- + Rs.50,000/-).
19. Accordingly, the compensation to be awarded to the
appellant/claimant is assessed as under:-
S. No. Under Head Amount
1. Age of deceased 17 years
2. Monthly income of deceased Rs.2,500/- per month
3. Future prospects @ 40% Rs.1,000/-
4. Total income Rs.3,500/-
5. Number of dependents 1
6. Deduction towards personal
expenses of the deceased (50%)
Rs.1,750/-
PRIYANKA THAKUR
2026.09.03 19:26
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

FAO-2182-2002 (O&M) -9-
FAO-2183-2002(O&M)
7. Monthly loss of dependency Rs.1,750/-
8. Annual loss of dependency Rs.21,000/- (Rs.1,750/- X 12)
9. Multiplier 18
10. Loss of dependency
Rs.3,78,000/- (Rs.21,000/- x 18)
11. Compensation under
conventional heads to claimant-
mother
Rs.50,000/-
Total Compensation Rs.4,28,000/-
20. Resultantly, the appellant/claimant is held entitled to a sum
of Rs.4,28,000/- as compensation. The enhanced compensation thus
comes out to Rs.2,55,200/- ( Rs.4,28,000/- - Rs.1,72,800/-), which is
rounded off to Rs.2,55,000/-.
Analysis and assessment of compensation in FAO-2183-2002 , Shrimati
Prabha and others Vs Jaspal Singh and others , arising out of MACT
Case No.46 of 23.08.1999 :-
21. This claim petition was instituted by mother, grandmother and
grandfather of the deceased. As per version of claimants, deceased was
working as an accountant with different firms and used to earn Rs.3,000/-
per month. He was 21 years of age. However, Tribunal assessed his monthly
income to be Rs.2,100/- per month and after deducting 1/3rd amount
towards personal expenses, monthly loss of dependency was assessed as
Rs.1400/- and multiplier of 12 was applied and a sum of Rs.2,01,600/- was
awarded as compensation.
22. L earned Tribunal held that the claimants have failed to lead
cogent and convincing evidence to prove the income of the deceased and
their bald and self-serving statement was not relied upon. However, the
PRIYANKA THAKUR
2026.09.03 19:26
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

FAO-2182-2002 (O&M) -10-
FAO-2183-2002(O&M)
version of the claimants that deceased was an accountant has gone
unrebutted and the Tribunal assessed his monthly income to be Rs.2,100/-
per month. However, Hon'ble Supreme Court in (2022) 1 SCC 198,
Chandra alias Chander alias Chanda Ram and another Vs. Mukesh
Kumar Yadav , 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. As such, some amount of guess work has to be
applied while assessing the income. In the present case, the accident had
taken place in the year 1999 and as such, some amount of guesswork has
to be applied while assessing the monthly income and the income of
deceased is accordingly assessed as Rs.2,700/- per month as he was an
accountant.
23. Since deceased was 21 years of age, 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/- per month (Rs.2,700/- + Rs.1,080/-).
24. The claim petition has been filed by mother, grandmother and
PRIYANKA THAKUR
2026.09.03 19:26
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

FAO-2182-2002 (O&M) -11-
FAO-2183-2002(O&M)
grandfather of the deceased. As such, deceased has thus left behind three
dependents. Since, the deceased was a bachelor, 50% 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.1,890/- (Rs.3,780/- − Rs.1,890/-)
and the annual loss of dependency comes out to Rs.22,680/- (Rs.1,890/-
X 12) to which multiplier of 18 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.4,08,240/-
(Rs.22,680/- x 18).
25. As per law laid down in Pranay Sethi’s case (supra), a sum
of Rs.70,000/- is payable towards 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. However, the judgment in
Pranay Sethi’s case (supra) was passed in the year 2017 and taking into
consideration the price index prevalent in the year 199 9 when the
accident took place, claimant No.1, who is mother of deceased is held
entitled to a sum of Rs.30,000/- towards loss of consortium , Rs.10,000/-
for funeral expenses and Rs.10,000/- for loss of estate . Likewise,
cl aimants No.2 and 3 , who are grandmother and grandfather of deceased
are also held entitled to a sum of Rs.30,000/- for loss of 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.5,18,240/-
(Rs.4,08,240/- + Rs.1,10,000/-).
PRIYANKA THAKUR
2026.09.03 19:26
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

FAO-2182-2002 (O&M) -12-
FAO-2183-2002(O&M)
26. Accordingly, the compensation to be awarded to the
appellants/claimants is assessed as under:-
S. Under Head Amount
No.
1. Age of deceased 21 years
2. Monthly income of deceased Rs.2,700/- per month
3. Future prospects @ 40%
Rs.1,080/-
4. Total income Rs.3,780/-
5. Number of dependents 3
Rs.1,890/-
6. Deduction towards personal expenses
of the deceased (50% as deceased
was bachelor)
7. Monthly loss of dependency
Rs.1,890/-
8. Annual loss of dependency
Rs.22,680/- (Rs.1,890/- X 12)
9. Multiplier 18
10. Loss of dependency
Rs.4,08,240/- (Rs.22,680/- x 18)
11. Compensation under conventional Rs.50,000/-
heads to claimant No.1- mother
12. Compensation to claimants No.2 and
3 (grandmother and grandfather of
the deceased) towards consortium
Rs.30,000/- each
(Rs.30,000/- x 2 =Rs.60,000/-)
Total Compensation
Rs.5,18,240/-
27. Resultantly, the appellants/claimants are held entitled to a
sum of Rs.5,18,240/- as compensation. The enhanced compensation thus
comes out to Rs.3,16,640/- (Rs.5,18,240/- - Rs.2,01,600/-), which is
rounded off to Rs.3,17,000/-.
28. As a result of afore-said discussion, FAO-2182-2002 filed
by the claimant Vijay Kumari and FAO-2183-2002 filed by the claimants
Shrimati Prabha etc. are partly accepted with costs.
29. Claimant Vijay Kumari in FAO-2182-2002 is held entitled
PRIYANKA THAKUR
2026.09.03 19:26
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

FAO-2182-2002 (O&M) -13-
FAO-2183-2002(O&M)
to a sum of Rs.2,55,000/- 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. 23.08.1999 till
realization payable by respondents No.1 to 3 jointly and severally.
30. Claimants Shrimati Prabha etc. in FAO-2183-2002 are held
entitled to a sum of Rs.3,17,000/- 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.
23.08.1999 till realization payable by respondents No.1 to 3 jointly and
severally. Out of the enhanced compensation, a sum of Rs.50,000/- each
along with proportionate interest be paid to the claimants No.2 and 3
(grandmother and grandfather of the deceased) while remaining amount
be paid to claimant No.1 (mother of the deceased) along with
proportionate interest.
31. 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.
32. A photocopy of this order be placed on the file of the
connected case.
PRIYANKA THAKUR
2026.09.03 19:26
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

FAO-2182-2002 (O&M) -14-
FAO-2183-2002(O&M)
33. Pending misc. application(s), if any, shall also stand
disposed of.
31.08.2026 (YASHVIR SINGH RATHOR)
Priyanka Thakur JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether Reportable Yes/No
PRIYANKA THAKUR
2026.09.03 19:26
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document