Assi vs Gurmeet Singh And Ors

FAO-2056-2004 - 1
-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
231 FAO-2056-2004
Date of decision: 09.09.2026
ASSI (SINCE DECEASED) THROUGH HER LR ....APPELLANT
VERSUS
GURMEET SINGH AND ORS ...RESPONDENTS
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHVIR SINGH RATHOR
Present: Mr. C.L. Verma, Advocate for the appellant.
Respondent No.1 ex parte vide order dated 25.02.2026.
Mr. Navkiran Singh, Advocate for respondent No.2.
(Respondent No.2 stated to have died but LRs not brought on
record)
*
YASHVIR SINGH RATHOR. J.(Oral)
1. At the very outset, it is pertinent to mention that no application has
been moved to bring on record LRs of respondent No.2. As per Order 22 Rule 4
C.P.C., it is the duty of the LRs of respondent to bring them on record.
2. This appeal has been instituted by claimant for enhancement of
compensation against the Award dated 05.03.2004 passed by MACT,
Nawanshahr ( for short “Tribunal” ) in MACT case No.63 of 09.09.2000 in a
petition under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 vide
(for short ‘Act’)
which a sum of Rs.50,000/- has been awarded as compensation alongwith
interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of claim petition till
realization on account of death of Makhan Ram in a motor vehicular accident
which took place on 29.07.2000 due to rash and negligent driving on the part of
respondent No.1 while driving Truck No.PUG-8861 ( for short ‘offending
vehicle’ ) and owned by respondent No.2.
3. From the pleadings of parties, following issues were framed by the
learned Tribunal:-
VISHAL VARDHAN
2026.09.14 14:32
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

FAO-2056-2004 - 2
-
“1. Whether Makhan Ram died due to the injuries received in the
accident, dated 29.7.2000 at 11.00 AM, in the area of Nai
Abadi, Garhshankar Road, Banga? OPP
2. If the above said issue succeeds, then whether the said
accident occurred, due to rash and negligent driving of
vehicle No.PUG-8861, being driven by respondent No.1?
OPP
3. Whether the claimants are entitled to recover Rs.8,00,000/-
from the respondent by way of compensation for the loss that
occurred to them due to the death of Makhan Ram? OPP
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.50,000/- as compensation to the
claimant along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of claim
petition till realization payable by respondents No.1 and 2 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.2 that the accident had occurred
due to the rash and negligent driving on the part of respondent No.1 while
driving the offending vehicle which was owned by respondent No.2. 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.
VISHAL VARDHAN
2026.09.14 14:32
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

FAO-2056-2004 - 3
-
8. Learned counsel for the appellant argued that the impugned award
vide which compensation of Rs.50,000/- 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 deceased was 36 years of age and
multiplier of 15 should have been applied to the loss of dependency. Learned
counsel next contended that no compensation has been paid under conventional
heads i.e. loss of consortium, loss of estate and funeral expenses and he prayed
that compensation be suitably enhanced. Learned counsel next contended that
the Tribunal has gravely erred while coming to the conclusion that claimant
No.2 Ranjit @ Rana who was brother of deceased was not dependent upon him.
Learned counsel next contended that the legal representative is one, who suffers
on account of death of a person in a motor vehicle accident and need not
necessarily be a wife, husband, parent or child. The term `legal representative’
under Act should not be given a narrow interpretation to exclude those persons
as claimants who were dependent on the deceased’s income and sister and
brothers being financially dependent are legal representatives under the Act
entitling them to receive compensation. Learned counsel next contended that
Section 166 of Motor Vehicle Act makes it clear that every legal representative
who suffers on account of death of a person in a motor vehicle accident should
have a remedy for realization of compensation and he prayed that adequate
compensation should be awarded to the claimants. In support of his contentions,
learned counsel has relied upon N. Jayasree Vs. Cholamandalam MS General
VISHAL VARDHAN
2026.09.14 14:32
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

FAO-2056-2004 - 4
-
Insurance Company Ltd, 2025 Livelaw (SC) 309 Sadhana Tomar & Ors. Vs.
Ashok Kushwaha & Ors., 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 .
9. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent No.2 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.
10. First point to be decided is as to whether claimant Ranjit Singh @
Rana is entitled to compensation or not. Claimant Rana is the younger brother of
the deceased and Tribunal held that he was not dependent upon the deceased.
However, Hon’ble Supreme Court in N. Jayasree’s case (supra) , while defining
the term “legal representative” has held as under:-
"16. In our view, the term "legal representative" should be given a
wider interpretation for the purpose of Chapter XII of the MV Act
and it should not be confined only to mean the spouse, parents and
children of the deceased. As noticed above, the MV Act is a
benevolent legislation enacted for the object of providing monetary
relief to the victims or their families. Therefore, the MV Act calls
for a liberal and wider interpretation to serve the real purpose
underlying the enactment and fulfil its legislative intent. We are
also of the view that in order to maintain a claim petition, it is
sufficient for the claimant to establish his loss of dependency.
Section 166 of the MV Act makes it clear that every legal
representative who suffers on account of the death of a person in a
motor vehicle accident should have a remedy for realization of
compensation."
VISHAL VARDHAN
2026.09.14 14:32
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

FAO-2056-2004 - 5
-
11. Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sadhana Tomar’s case (supra) has held
that a legal representative is one, who suffers on account of death of a person
due to motor vehicle accident and need not necessarily be a wife, husband,
parent or child. The term legal representative under Motor Vehicles Act should
not be given a narrow interpretation to exclude those persons as claimants who
were dependent on the deceased’s income. The father and sister, being
financially dependent were held to be legal representatives under the Act
entitling them to compensation. Besides this, Hon’ble Supreme Court in AIR
1987(SC) 1690 Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation, Ahmedabad Vs.
Ramanbhai Prabhatbhai and Anr. , has held that a legal representative is one
who suffers on account of death of a person due to a motor vehicle accident and
need not necessarily be a wife, husband, parent and child. To the same effect is
the law laid down in (2007) 10 SCC 715 – Hafizun Begum Vs. Mohd. Ikram
Heque and Ors.
12. As a result of the afore-said discussion, it is held that claimant-
Ranjit Singh @ Rana being brother of the deceased is legal representative of
deceased and he has to be considered as dependent upon the deceased.
Accordingly, he is entitled to the compensation.
13. Now, 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
VISHAL VARDHAN
2026.09.14 14:32
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

FAO-2056-2004 - 6
-
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.
14. The present claim petition has been instituted by the mother and
brother of the deceased, namely, Makhan Ram. As per version of claimants, he
was a labourer and used to earn about Rs.200-300/- per day but the Tribunal held
his income to be Rs.2,500/- per month. The accident in question had taken place
on 29.07.2000 and it can be assumed that deceased must have been earning
Rs.2,500/- per month in the year 2000 and there is thus no reason to take a
contrary view.
15. Deceased was 36 years of age as has been held by the Tribunal 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 National Insurance Co.
Ltd Vs. Pranay Sethi’s case (supra), which takes his income to Rs.3,500/-
(Rs.2,500/- + Rs.1,000/-) .
16. The petition in hand has been instituted by the mother and brother
of the deceased. However, he was a bachelor and accordingly 50% of the income
VISHAL VARDHAN
2026.09.14 14:32
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

FAO-2056-2004 - 7
-
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.1,750/-
towards personal expenses, 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) .
17. As per guidelines laid down in Sarla Verma’s case (supra) ,
multiplier of 15 has to be applied as deceased was 36 years of age and after
applying the same, the total loss of dependency comes to Rs.3,15,000/-
(Rs.21,000/- X 15).
18. In addition to this, claimant No.1-mother 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 National Insurance Co. Ltd Vs.
Pranay Sethi’s case (supra), which takes the compensation to Rs.3,85,000/- .
19. Accordingly, the compensation to be awarded to the
appellant/claimant is assessed as under:-
S.No. Under Head Compensation assessed by this
Court
1. Age of deceased 36 years
2. Monthly income of deceased Rs.2,500/- per month
3. Future prospects @ 40% Rs.1,000/-
4. Total income Rs.3,500/- per month
5. Deduction towards personal expenses Rs.1,750/-
of the deceased (1/2)
6. Monthly loss of dependency Rs.1,750/-
7. Annual loss of dependency Rs.21,000/-
(Rs.1,750/- X 12)
8. Multiplier 15
9. Compensation on account of Loss of Rs.3,15,000/-
VISHAL VARDHAN
2026.09.14 14:32
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

FAO-2056-2004 - 8
-
dependency
10. Compensation under conventional Rs.70,000/-
heads to claimant No.1
Total Compensation Rs.3,85,000/-
Interest 9%
20. Resultantly, the appeal in hand is partly accepted with costs and
claimant is held entitled to a sum of Rs.3,85,000/- as compensation. The
enhanced compensation thus comes out to Rs.3,35,000/- (Rs.3,85,000/- -
Rs.50,000/-) 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. 09.09.2000, till realization payable by respondents No.1 and 2
jointly and severally. However, legal representative(s) of respondent No.2 shall
be liable only if they have inherited any property/estate from respondent No.2,
jointly and severally. Since claimants No.1 has died during the pendency of the
appeal, the amount of compensation falling in her share, along with interest,
shall be released in favour of claimant No.2 who is also LR of respondent No.1.
21. Pending misc. application (s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.
09.09.2026 (YASHVIR SINGH RATHOR)
Vishal Vardhan JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned. : Yes/No
Whether reportable. : Yes/No
VISHAL VARDHAN
2026.09.14 14:32
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document