Rekha Rani Etc. vs Om Parkash And Ors.

FAO-3060-2002 - 1
-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
216 FAO-3060-2002
Date of decision: 31.08.2026
REKHA RANI AND ORS. ....APPELLANTS
VERSUS
OM PARKASH AND ORS. ...RESPONDENTS
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHVIR SINGH RATHOR
Present: Mr. Raghav Sharma, Advocate and
Mr. Arvind, Advocate
for the appellants.
Notice to respondents No.1 to 3 dispensed with.
Mr. Aseem Aggarwal, Advocate
for respondent No.4-Insurance Company.
*
YASHVIR SINGH RATHOR. J.(Oral)
1. In the present case, all the respondents i.e. driver, owners and insurer
of offending Bus No.HR-37-1671 have been held liable to pay compensation to
the claimants jointly and severally and Insurance Company is already represented
by its counsel and as such, there is no necessity to issue notice to the driver
(respondent No.1) and owners (respondents No.2 and 3) and issuance of notice to
respondents No.1 to 3 stands dispensed with.
2. This appeal has been instituted by claimants for enhancement of
compensation against the Award dated 19.01.2002 passed by MACT, Kurukshetra
( for short “Tribunal” ) in MACT case No.111 of 2001 in a petition under Section
166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short ‘Act’) vide which a sum of
Rs.3,03,000/- 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
VISHAL VARDHAN
2026.09.01 18:37
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

FAO-3060-2002 - 2
-
realization on account of death of Khem Chand in a motor vehicular accident
which took place on 30.12.1999 due to rash and negligent driving on the part of
respondent No.1 while driving Bus No.HR-37-1671 ( for short ‘offending
vehicle’ ), owned by respondents No.2 and 3 and which was insured with
respondent No.4.
3. From the pleadings of parties, following issues were framed by the
learned Tribunal:-
“1. Whether the accident in question resulting into death of Khem
Chand and Malkiyat Singh and injuries to Manphool Singh and
damage of vehicle No.HR-07B-5489 took place on 30.12.1999
in the area of village Bhatt Majra on account of rash and
negligent manner of Bus No.HR-37-1671 by the respondent
No.1 as alleged? OPP
2. If issue No.1 is proved, whether the claimants are entitled to
compensation, if so, how much and from whom? OPP
3. Whether respondent No.1 was not holding valid and effective
driving licence? OPR
4. Whether the claim petition is bad for non-joinder of necessary
parties? OPR
5. 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.3,03,000/- as compensation to the
claimants along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of claim
petition till realization payable by respondents No.1 to 4 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.
VISHAL VARDHAN
2026.09.01 18:37
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

FAO-3060-2002 - 3
-
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.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 respondents No.2 and 3, which was insured with
respondent No.4. 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.3,03,000/- 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 seven dependents
th
and 1/5 amount should have been deducted from his income towards personal
rd
expenses instead of 1/3 as has been done by the Tribunal. Learned counsel
further contended that deceased was 35 years of age and multiplier of 12 has been
applied whereas multiplier of 16 should have been applied. Learned counsel
further contended that no compensation has been paid for loss of estate, whereas
compensation of Rs.5,000/- for loss of consortium, Rs.10,000/- for transportation
and funeral charges have been awarded which are 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
VISHAL VARDHAN
2026.09.01 18:37
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

FAO-3060-2002 - 4
-
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 .
9. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent No.4 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.
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.
VISHAL VARDHAN
2026.09.01 18:37
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

FAO-3060-2002 - 5
-
11. The present claim petition has been instituted by the wife, four minor
children and parents of deceased Khem Chand. As per version of claimants,
deceased was working as Head Carpenter at the shop of Mohan Lal, namely,
Garg’s Furniture House, Pehowa and was getting Rs.6,500/- per month as salary.
He was 35 years of age and all the claimants were dependent upon him. The
Tribunal did not rely upon the testimony of proprietor of the furniture shop,
namely, Mohan Lal as no record had been maintained by him regarding payment
of salary of Rs.6,500/- to the deceased and assessed his monthly income to be
Rs.3,000/-. Thereafter, 1/3rd amount was deducted towards personal expenses and
after applying multiplier of 12 total loss of dependency was assessed as
Rs.2,88,000/- and total compensation of Rs.3,03,000/- was awarded.
12. However, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is grossly
inadequate. The accident had taken place on 30.12.1999. The testimony of
claimants that deceased was a Carpenter has gone unchallenged as no evidence
has been led by respondents to controvert this fact. Though, claimants have
examined PW7 Mohan Lal proprietor of Garg’s Furniture House, who stated that
he was paying Rs.6,500/- per month to deceased as salary yet the Tribunal has
rightly discarded his testimony as he did not produce any record regarding
payment of salary at the rate of Rs.6,500/- per month. However, 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
VISHAL VARDHAN
2026.09.01 18:37
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

FAO-3060-2002 - 6
-
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. Besides this, Hon’ble Supreme
Court while deciding Civil Appeal No.15021 of 2024 titled Karamjit Singh Vs.
Amandeep Singh and another vide judgment dated 17.12.2024 has held that a
carpenter has to be treated as a skilled person and it will be unfair to classify a
carpenter as an unskilled worker. Hon’ble Supreme Court in 2019 (5) RCR (Civil)
884, Chameli Devi and others Vs. Jivrali Mian and others , has assessed the
monthly income of a carpenter to be Rs.5000/- per month in the year 2001 and it
was further held that in such cases where deceased is engaged in such type of
profession, claimants can only lead oral evidence.
13. In the present case, the accident had taken place on 30.12.1999 and
Carpenter is certainly a skilled person and it can be assumed that the deceased
must be earning at least Rs.4,000/- per month while working as a Carpenter.
Learned Tribunal has thus gravely erred while assessing his income to be
Rs.3,000/- per month only, which is on lower side. Accordingly, income of
deceased is taken as Rs.4,000/- per month.
14. The Tribunal has held the age of the deceased to be 35 years as
mentioned in the postmortem report Ex.P6 . Since deceased was 35 years of age at
the time of accident, 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.5,600/- (Rs.4,000/- + Rs.1,600/-).
VISHAL VARDHAN
2026.09.01 18:37
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

FAO-3060-2002 - 7
-
15. The petition in hand has been instituted by the wife, four minor
children 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 seven
dependents and 1/5th 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.1,120/- towards personal expenses, the monthly loss of
dependency comes out to Rs.4,480/- (Rs.5,600/- - Rs.1,120/-) and the annual loss
of dependency comes out to Rs.53,760/- (Rs.4,480/- X 12) .
16. As per guidelines laid down in Sarla Verma’s case (supra) ,
multiplier of 16 has to be applied as deceased was 35 years of age and after
applying the same, the total loss of dependency comes to Rs.8,60,160/-
(Rs.53,760/- X 16).
17. 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 1999 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, claimants No.2 to 5 who
are children of deceased are also held entitled to a sum of Rs.30,000/- each for
‘ loss of parental consortium ’ and claimants No.6 and 7 who are parents of
deceased is also held entitled to a sum of Rs.30,000/- each for ‘ loss of filial
VISHAL VARDHAN
2026.09.01 18:37
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

FAO-3060-2002 - 8
-
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.10,90,160/- .
18. 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 35 years
2. Monthly income of deceased Rs.4,000/- per month
3. Future prospects @ 40% Rs.1,600/-
4. Total income Rs.5,600/- per month
5. Number of dependents 7
6. Deduction towards personal expenses of Rs.1,120/-
the deceased (1/5th)
7. Monthly loss of dependency Rs.4,480/-
8. Annual loss of dependency Rs.53,760/-
(Rs.4,480/- X 12)
9. Multiplier 16
10. Compensation on account of Loss of Rs.8,60,160/-
dependency
11. Compensation under conventional heads Rs.50,000/-
to claimant No.1/wife
12. Loss of parental consortium to children
and loss of filial consortium to parents of
deceased
Rs.1,80,000/-
(Rs.30,000/- X 6)
Total Compensation Rs.10,90,160/-
(rounded off to Rs.10,90,000/-)
Interest 9%
19. Resultantly, the appeal in hand is partly accepted with costs and
appellants/claimants are held entitled to a sum of Rs.10,90,000/- as compensation.
The enhanced compensation thus comes out to Rs.7,87,000/- (Rs.10,90,000/- -
VISHAL VARDHAN
2026.09.01 18:37
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

FAO-3060-2002 - 9
-
Rs.3,03,000/-) 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. 22.01.2000, till realization payable by respondents No.1 to 4 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.50,000/- each
be paid to the children and parents of the 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.
31.08.2026 (YASHVIR SINGH RATHOR)
Vishal Vardhan JUDGE
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