Maya Devi And Others vs Khajan Singh & Others

FAO-1705-2001 - 1
-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
212 FAO-1705-2001
Date of decision: 08.09.2026
MAYA DEVI AND OTHERS ....APPELLANTS
VERSUS
KHAJAN SINGH & OTHERS ...RESPONDENTS
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHVIR SINGH RATHOR
Present: Mr. Brij Bhushan Sharma, Advocate for
Mr. Dixit Garg, Advocate for the appellants.
None for respondents No.1.
Respondent No.2 ex parte before the Tribunal.
Mr. Pavit Sohal, Advocate and Mr. Puneet Sharma, Advocate
for respondent No.3-Insurance Company.
*
YASHVIR SINGH RATHOR. J.(Oral)
1. Perusal of the record shows that respondent No.2 was already
proceeded against ex parte before the Tribunal and on 16.05.2025, Mr. Parveen
Kaushik, Advocate had filed his memo of appearance on behalf of respondent
No.1 in pursuance of publication issued against respondents No.1 and 2. However,
none has appeared on his behalf thereafter and as such, respondent No.1 is
proceeded against ex parte.
2. This appeal has been instituted by claimants for enhancement of
compensation against the Award dated 22.01.2001 passed by MACT, Bhiwani ( for
short “Tribunal” ) in MACT case No.140 of 1997 in a petition under Section 166
of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short ‘Act’) vide which a sum of Rs.1,73,000/-
has been awarded as compensation to them alongwith interest at the rate of 12%
per annum from the date of filing of claim petition till realization on account of
death of Naresh Kumar in a motor vehicular accident which took place on
04.07.1997 due to rash and negligent driving on the part of respondent No.1 while
VISHAL VARDHAN
2026.09.09 16:43
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

FAO-1705-2001 - 2
-
driving Truck No.HR-46-9887 ( for short ‘offending vehicle’ ), owned by
respondent No.2 and which was insured with respondent No.3.
3. From the pleadings of parties, following issues were framed by the
learned Tribunal:-
“1. Whether the accident in question had taken place on account of
rash and negligent driving of truck No.HR-46-9887 by its
driver, respondent No.1? OPP
2. To what amount of compensation, the petitioners are entitled to
and if so from whom? OPP
3. Whether the respondents are not liable to pay any
compensation, in view of the various reasons taken in their
written statement? OPR
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.1,73,000/- as compensation to the
claimants along with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of filing of claim
petition till realization payable by respondents No.1 and 2 jointly and severally.
However, Insurance Company was exonerated of its liability to pay compensation
to the claimants on account of breach of terms and conditions of the Insurance
Policy as driver did not possess a valid and effective driving licence at the time of
accident.
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
VISHAL VARDHAN
2026.09.09 16:43
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

FAO-1705-2001 - 3
-
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 vehicle, 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.
8. Learned counsel for the appellants argued that the impugned award
vide which compensation of Rs.1,73,000/- 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 next contended that deceased has left behind four dependents and
th
1/4 amount should have been deducted from his income towards personal
expenses. Learned counsel further contended that deceased was 25 years of age
and multiplier of 16 has been applied whereas multiplier of 18 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. 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 SCC 780 , United India
Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Satinder Kaur .
VISHAL VARDHAN
2026.09.09 16:43
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

FAO-1705-2001 - 4
-
9. On the other hand, learned counsel for the 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.
10. 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.
11. The present claim petition has been instituted by the wife, minor son
and parents of deceased, namely, Naresh Kumar. As per version of claimants,
deceased was working as a Security Guard and was getting a salary of Rs.1,600/-
VISHAL VARDHAN
2026.09.09 16:43
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

FAO-1705-2001 - 5
-
per month plus other allowances and to the same effect is the testimony of PW2
Maya Devi (wife of the deceased). However, the Tribunal held that in the absence
of any documentary evidence, the version of claimants cannot be accepted and
assessed the income of deceased to be Rs.1,200/- per month. Hon’ble Supreme
Court in (2022) 1 SCC 198, Chander 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.
12. In the present case, the accident had taken place on 04.07.1997 and
some amount of guesswork has to be applied while assessing the monthly income
of the deceased. The testimony of claimant that deceased was working as a
Security Guard has gone unchallenged and there is thus no reason to disbelieve the
same and it can be assumed that he must be earning Rs.1,600/- per month as
pleaded by the claimants. Accordingly, income of deceased is taken as Rs.1,600/-
per month .
13. Deceased was 25 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 Pranay Sethi’s case (supra),
which takes his income to Rs.2,240/- (Rs.1,600/- + Rs.640/-) .
VISHAL VARDHAN
2026.09.09 16:43
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

FAO-1705-2001 - 6
-
14. The petition in hand has been instituted by the wife, minor son and
parents of deceased. Hon’ble Supreme Court in 2025 Livelaw (SC) 309, Sadhana
Tomar & Ors. Vs. Ashok Kushwaha & Ors , has held that father being
financially dependent is legal representative under the Act entitling him to
compensation. Accordingly, it is held that deceased has left behind four
dependents and 1/4th 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
deducting a sum of Rs.560/- towards personal expenses, the monthly loss of
dependency comes out to Rs.1,680/- (Rs.2,240/- - Rs.560/-) and the annual loss of
dependency comes out to Rs.20,160/- (Rs.1,680/- X 12) .
15. As per guidelines laid down in Sarla Verma’s case (supra) ,
multiplier of 18 has to be applied as deceased was 25 years of age and after
applying the same, the total loss of dependency comes to Rs.3,62,880/-
(Rs.20,160/- X 18).
16. 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 1997 when the accident took place, the claimant No.1/wife 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, claimant No.2 who is son
of deceased is also held entitled to a sum of Rs.30,000/- for ‘ loss of parental
consortium ’ and claimants No.3 and 4 who are parents of deceased are also held
entitled to a sum of Rs.30,000/- each for ‘ loss of filial consortium ’, in view of
VISHAL VARDHAN
2026.09.09 16:43
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

FAO-1705-2001 - 7
-
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.5,02,880/- .
17. Accordingly, the compensation to be awarded to the
appellants/claimants is assessed as under:-
S.No. Under Head Compensation assessed by this
Court
1. Age of deceased 25 years
2. Monthly income of deceased Rs.1,600/- per month
3. Future prospects @ 40% Rs.640/-
4. Total income Rs.2,240/- per month
5. Number of dependents 4
6. Deduction towards personal expenses Rs.560/-
of the deceased (1/4th)
7. Monthly loss of dependency Rs.1,680/-
8. Annual loss of dependency Rs.20,160/-
(Rs.1,680/- X 12)
9. Multiplier 18
10. Compensation on account of Loss of Rs.3,62,880/-
dependency
11. Compensation under conventional Rs.50,000/-
heads to claimant No.1/wife
12. Loss of parental consortium to son and
loss of filial consortium to parents of
deceased
Rs.90,000/-
(Rs.30,000/- X 3)
Total Compensation Rs.5,02,880/-
(rounded off to Rs.5,03,000/-)
Interest 9%
18. The Tribunal held that the driving licence of respondent No.1 had
expired on 26.09.1996 and it was got renewed from RTI, Hisar on 18.09.1998,
whereas accident took place on 04.07.1997 and as such, driver did not possess a
valid and effective driving licence as on the date of accident and the Insurance
VISHAL VARDHAN
2026.09.09 16:43
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

FAO-1705-2001 - 8
-
Company was exonerated. However, the vehicle was insured with respondent
No.3 and in these circumstances, Insurance Company is liable to pay the
compensation to the claimants being third party but it shall have a right to recover
the same from the insured/owner from the date of deposit along with interest @
6% per annum without filing a separate suit.
19. Resultantly, the appeal in hand is partly accepted with costs and
appellants/claimants are held entitled to a sum of Rs.5,03,000/- as compensation.
The enhanced compensation thus comes out to Rs.3,30,000/- (Rs.5,03,000/- -
Rs.1,73,000/-) 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. 22.08.1997, till realization payable by respondents No.1 and 2 jointly
and severally. However, Insurance Company shall pay the entire compensation, if
already not recovered from respondents No.1 and 2, as well as enhanced
compensation but it shall have a right to recover the same from the insured along
with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of deposit till realization without
filing a separate suit. Out of the enhanced compensation, a sum of Rs.40,000/-
each be paid to the children and father of the deceased whereas a sum of
Rs.50,000/- be paid to the mother of deceased along with proportionate interest
and remaining amount be paid to claimant No.1/wife along with proportionate
interest.
20. Pending misc. application (s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.
08.09.2026 (YASHVIR SINGH RATHOR)
Vishal Vardhan JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned. : Yes/No
Whether reportable. : Yes/No
VISHAL VARDHAN
2026.09.09 16:43
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document