(O&M) Geeta Devi And Anr vs Tara Chand And Ors

225 FAO-4617-2002 (O&M)
Date of decision: 31.08.2026
GEETA DEVI AND ANR ....APPELLANTS
VERSUS
TARA CHAND AND ORS ...RESPONDENTS
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHVIR SINGH RATHOR
Present: Mr. Tarun Yadav, Advocate,
Mr. Ashutosh Sharma, Advocate and
Mr. Pawan Kumar, Advocate
for the appellants.
Mr. Arpit Kumar Bangar, Advocate
for respondent No.1.
Notice to respondent No.2 dispensed with
vide order dated 19.05.2026.
Mr. Sahej Mahajan, Advocate
for respondent No.3-Insurance Company.
YASHVIR SINGH RATHOR. J.(Oral)
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. Today, learned counsel for the appellants/claimants has placed on
record the last pay drawn certificate and service particulars certificate of deceased,
which are taken on record. Registry is directed to tag the same at an appropriate
place on the record.
3. This appeal has been instituted by claimants for enhancement of
compensation against the Award dated 08.04.2002 passed by MACT, Gurgaon
( for short “Tribunal” ) in MACT case No.151 of 2000 in a petition under Section
VISHAL VARDHAN
2026.09.01 18:37
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

Rs.9,45,000/- 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 Rohit Kumar Yadav in a motor vehicular
accident which took place on 10.07.2000 due to rash and negligent driving on the
part of respondent No.2 while driving the Bus bearing No.RJ-18-P-611 ( for short
‘offending vehicle’ ), owned by respondent No.1 and insured with respondent
No.3.
4. From the pleadings of parties, following issues were framed by the
learned Tribunal:-
“1. Whether death of Rohit Kumar was caused due to rash and
negligent driving of vehicle No.RJ-18-P-611 driven by Nobat,
respondent No.2 (wrongly mentioned name as Tara Chand), as
alleged? OPP
2. If issue No.1 is proved to what amount the petitioners are
entitled as compensation and from which of the respondents?
OPP
3. Whether respondent No.2 Nobat (wrongly mentioned name as
Tara Chand) driver did not possess a valid and effective
driving licence on the date of accident. If so to what effect?
OPR
4. Relief.”
5. Thereafter, the parties led evidence in support of their case.
6. After hearing the parties and going through the material on the file,
learned Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.9,45,000/- as compensation to the claimants
along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of claim petition till
realization.
VISHAL VARDHAN
2026.09.01 18:37
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

material on file has been perused and parties have been heard.
8. 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.2 while driving the
offending vehicle, owned by respondent No.1 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.9,45,000/- 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 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 further contended that no compensation has been paid for loss of
consortium and loss of estate, whereas compensation of Rs.4,200/- for funeral
expenses has been awarded 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
VISHAL VARDHAN
2026.09.01 18:37
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

10. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents No.1 and 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.
11. 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.
12. The present claim petition has been filed by the wife and minor son
of deceased who was serving in the Indian Air Force as a Corporal and was 30
years of age. To prove his income, claimants have examined PW6 J.W.
VISHAL VARDHAN
2026.09.01 18:37
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

according to which he was drawing the monthly salary of Rs.7,705/- whose
breakup is as under:-
(a) Basic Pay Rs.4,040/-
(b) Good Conduct Badge Pay Rs.120/-
(c) Dearness Allowances Rs.1,656/-
(d) Composite personal Maintenance Rs.75/-
Allowance
(e) Special Pay (Steralization) Rs.70/-
(f) Leave Ration Allowance Rs.184/-
(g) Transport allowance Rs.75/-
(h) CILO Rs.600/-
(I) Ration Allowance Rs.885/-
Total Rs.7,705/-
13. Learned Tribunal assessed his monthly income to be Rs.7,371/- after
deducting maintenance allowance of Rs.75/-, transport allowance of Rs.75/- and
leave ration allowance of Rs.184/-. However, only the transport allowance of
Rs.75/- per month was liable to be deducted and other allowances were a part of
salary and could not have been deducted. Accordingly, out of the total salary of
Rs.7,705/-, only a sum of Rs.75/- being paid towards transport allowance is liable
to be deducted and after deducting the same, the monthly income comes out to
Rs.7,630/- .
14. In the postmortem report, the age of deceased is mentioned as 30
years but claimant stated that deceased was 31 years of age and as such, her
version has to be believed. Even, as per Service Particulars Certificate furnished
on file today, the date of birth of deceased was 20.03.1969 and as such, he was 31
years of age on the date of accident. Since deceased was 31 years of age, 50%
VISHAL VARDHAN
2026.09.01 18:37
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

prospects in view of law laid down in Pranay Sethi’s case (supra), which takes
his income to Rs.11,445/- per month (Rs.7,630/- + Rs.3,815/-) . Out of this
amount, a sum of Rs.300/- shall be deductible towards income tax and after
deducting the same, the monthly income comes out to Rs.11,145/- (Rs.11,445/- -
Rs.300/-) .
15. The petition in hand has been instituted by the wife and minor son of
the deceased. Accordingly, it is held that deceased has left behind two dependents
and 1/3rd of the income thus has to be deducted towards personal and living
expenses. After deducting a sum of Rs.3,715/- towards personal expenses, the
monthly loss of dependency comes out to Rs.7,430/- (Rs.11,145/- - Rs.3,715/-)
and the annual loss of dependency comes out to Rs.89,160/- (Rs.7,430/- X 12) .
16. As per guidelines laid down in Sarla Verma’s case (supra) ,
multiplier of 16 has to be applied as deceased was 31 years of age and after
applying the same, the total loss of dependency comes to Rs.14,26,560/-
(Rs.89,160/- X 16).
17. 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, claimant No.2 who is son (now major) of deceased is also held entitled
to a sum of Rs.40,000/- on account of loss of parental consortium , in view of
law laid down in ‘Magma 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.15,36,560/- .
VISHAL VARDHAN
2026.09.01 18:37
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

appellants/claimants is assessed as under:-
S.No. Under Head Compensation assessed by this
Court
1. Age of deceased 31 years
2. Monthly income of deceased Rs.7,630/- per month
3. Future prospects @ 50% Rs.3,815/-
4. Total income Rs.11,445/- per month
5. Income Tax Deduction Rs.300/-
6. Total income after tax deduction Rs.11,145/-
7. Number of dependents 2
8. Deduction towards personal expenses Rs.3,715/-
of the deceased (1/3rd)
9. Monthly loss of dependency Rs.7,430/-
10. Annual loss of dependency Rs.89,160/-
(Rs.7,430/- X 12)
11. Multiplier 16
12. Compensation on account of Loss of Rs.14,26,560/-
dependency
13. Compensation under conventional Rs.70,000/-
heads to claimant No.1/wife
14. Loss of parental consortium to son of Rs.40,000/-
deceased
Total Compensation Rs.15,36,560/-
(rounded off to Rs.15,36,500/-)
Interest 9%
19. Resultantly, the appeal in hand is partly accepted with costs and
appellants/claimants are held entitled to a sum of Rs.15,36,500/- as compensation.
The enhanced compensation thus comes out to Rs.5,91,500/- (Rs.15,36,500/- -
Rs.9,45,000/-) over and above the compensation awarded by the Tribunal
VISHAL VARDHAN
2026.09.01 18:37
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

petition i.e. 09.08.2000, 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.1,50,000/- be
paid to the claimant No.2 i.e. son of deceased along with proportionate interest
and remaining amount to claimant No.1/wife along with proportionate interest.
20. 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.
21. Pending misc. application (s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.
(YASHVIR SINGH RATHOR)
31.08.2026 JUDGE
Vishal Vardhan
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