Gurdip Kaur And Ors vs Bawa Singh And Ors

FAO-3389-2002 (O&M)

- 1 -

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
228
FAO-3389-2002 (O&M)
Date of decision: 08.09.2026
GURDIP KAUR AND ORS ....Appellants
Versus
BAWA SINGH AND ORS ...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHVIR SINGH RATHOR
Present : Ms. B.K.Bhardwaj, Advocate,
Mr. P.S. Jammu, Advocate and
Mr. R.K. Poonia, Advocate for the appellants.
Notice to respondent No.1 is dispensed with.
Mr. Nishant Sehgal, Advocate for respondent No.2.
Mr. Sandeep Suri, Advocate for respondent No.3.
Service of respondents No.4 to 6 dispensed with
vide order dated 13.07.2026.
Respondent No.7 proforma respondent.
YASHVIR SINGH RATHOR. J.(Oral)
1. A perusal of the Award shows that respondents No.2 and 3 who are
owner and Insurance Company of offending vehicle have been held liable to pay
compensation to claimants jointly & severally. Insurance Company is already
represented by its counsel and therefore, there is no necessity to issue notice to
respondent No.1 and issuance of notice to respondent No.1 is dispensed with.
2. Mr. Nishant Sehgal, Advocate has put in appearance on behalf of
respondent No.2 and has filed Power of Attorney, which is taken on record.
3. This appeal has been instituted by claimants for enhancement of
compensation against the Award dated 01.09.2001 passed by MACT, Ferozepur
AMANDEEP GOSAIN
2026.09.11 09:32
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this
order/judgment

FAO-3389-2002 (O&M)

- 2 -

( for short “Tribunal” ) in MACT case No.85 of 1995 in a petition under Section
166 and 140 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ( for short ‘Act’ ) vide which a sum of
Rs.50,000/- has been awarded as compensation to the claimants along with
interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of claim petition till
realization on account of death of Kulmit Singh in a motor vehicle accident.
4. From the pleadings of parties, following issues were framed:-
1. Whether Kulmit Singh and Gurmail Singh died in an accident
with tanker No.PB-05-2144 in the area of village Thethar Kalan,
which was driven by respondent No.1 rashly and negligently? OPP.
2. Whether the claimants are legal heirs and dependents upon the
deceased?OPP
3. If issues No.1 and 2 are proved, whether the claimants are
entitled to compensation? If so how much and from which
respondents?OPP
4. Whether respondents No.1 and 2 were not holding valid
driving licence?OPR3.
5. 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.50,000/- as compensation to the claimants
alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of claim petition till
realization.
7. Feeling aggrieved, the appeal in hand has been preferred. The
material on file has been perused and parties have been heard.
8. The only issue required to be determined in the present appeal relates
AMANDEEP GOSAIN
2026.09.11 09:32
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this
order/judgment

FAO-3389-2002 (O&M)

- 3 -

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.1 that the accident had occurred due to the rash
and negligent driving on the part of respondent No.1 while driving the offending
tanker bearing No.PB-05-2144, 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.
9. Learned counsel for the appellants 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 contends that income of the deceased has
been assessed on lower side. Learned counsel further contends that future
prospects have not been added to the monthly income of the deceased contrary to
settled provisions of law. Learned counsel next contends that no compensation has
been awarded under conventional heads i.e. loss of consortium, loss of estate and
funeral expenses and he prayed that compensation be awarded under all the heads
and same be suitably enhanced. In support of his contentions, learned counsel for
the appellants 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 , (2021) 11 SCC 780 United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Satinder
Kaur.
AMANDEEP GOSAIN
2026.09.11 09:32
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this
order/judgment

FAO-3389-2002 (O&M)

- 4 -

10. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondents 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.
11. 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 instituted by the wife and parents
of the deceased namely Kulmit Singh. He was working as a pump operator in
Marketing Board and was drawing monthly salary of Rs.2,776/-. However, the
AMANDEEP GOSAIN
2026.09.11 09:32
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this
order/judgment

FAO-3389-2002 (O&M)

- 5 -

Tribunal held that he was a work charged employee and his services could be
terminated at any time but further held that he has to be treated as a skilled worker
and assessed his monthly income to be Rs.2,500/-. As such, there is no reason to
take a contrary view and it is held that income of the deceased has been correctly
assessed by the Tribunal. Date of birth of the deceased was 5.5.1969, as stated by
AW6, who had produced the service record. However, the Tribunal held that the
wife of the deceased has re-married and she is not entitled to any compensation
and awarded a sum of Rs.50,000/- only to the parents, which is grossly inadequate
and is not in accordance with law. It is well settled that loss of dependency has to
be determined as on the date of death and merely because the wife has re-married
is no ground to deny compensation to her as her right to claim compensation
accrued immediately on the date of death and will not abate on account of
remarriage by her. Moreover, there is no provision in the Act which would
disentitle a widow to such compensation on account of her remarriage and
claimant No.1 is thus entitled to compensation. Accordingly, it is held that
deceased has left behind three dependents i.e. wife and parents.
13. The accident had taken place on 22.05.1995 and the date of birth of
the deceased is 05.05.1969 and as such, he was around 26 years of age.
Accordingly , 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/-) .
14. Deceased has left behind three dependents and as such, 1/3rd of the
amount 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
AMANDEEP GOSAIN
2026.09.11 09:32
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this
order/judgment

FAO-3389-2002 (O&M)

- 6 -

loss of dependency comes out to Rs.2,333/- (Rs.3,500/- – Rs.1,167/-) and the
annual loss of dependency comes out to Rs.27,996/- (Rs.2,333/- × 12) to which
multiplier of 17 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.4,75,932/- (Rs.27,996/- × 17) .
15. 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 1995 when the accident took place, claimant No.1(wife) is held entitled to
a sum of Rs.20,000/- towards loss of consortium, Rs.7,500/- towards funeral
expenses and Rs.7,500/- for loss of estate . Likewise, claimants No.2 and 3 are
also held entitled to a sum of Rs.20,000/- each on account of loss of filial
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.5,50,932/-
(Rs.4,75,932/- + Rs.75,000/-).
16. Accordingly, the compensation to be awarded to the claimants is
assessed as under:-
S. No. Heads Amount
1. Age of deceased 26 years
2. Monthly income of deceased Rs.2,500/-
3. Monthly income after adding future prospects Rs.3,500/-
4. Deduction towards personal expenses @ 1/3rd Rs.1,167/-
5. Monthly loss of dependency Rs.2,333/-
6. Annual loss of dependency Rs.27,996/-
7. Multiplier 17
8. Loss of dependency Rs.4,75,932/-
9. Compensation to claimant No.1 (wife) under Rs.35,000/-
AMANDEEP GOSAIN
2026.09.11 09:32
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this
order/judgment

FAO-3389-2002 (O&M)

- 7 -

conventional heads
10. Loss of filial consortium to claimants No.2 and 3 Rs.40,000/- (Rs.20,000 x 2)
(parents)
11. Total compensation Rs.5,50,932/- (rounded off to
Rs. 5,51,000/-)
12. Interest 9%

17. Resultantly, the appeal in hand is partly accepted with costs and
claimants are held entitled to a sum of Rs. 5,51,000/- as compensation. The
enhanced compensation thus comes out to Rs.5,01,000/- (Rs. 5,51,000/- -
Rs.50,000/-) 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.
25.09.1995 till realization payable by respondents No.2 and 3 jointly and
severally. The enhanced compensation of Rs.5,01,000/- be paid to claimants (wife,
mother and father of the deceased) in equal shares alongwith proportionate
interest.
18. Registry is directed to email the authenticated copy of this 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.
19. Pending application, if any, shall stand disposed of.
(YASHVIR SINGH RATHOR)
08.09.2026 JUDGE
amandeep
Whether speaking/reasoned. : Yes/No
Whether Reportable. : Yes/No
AMANDEEP GOSAIN
2026.09.11 09:32
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this
order/judgment