Kanwaljit Kaur vs Union Of India

FAO-4634-2002 (O&M)

- 1 -

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
231
FAO-4634-2002 (O&M)
Date of decision: 08.09.2026
KANWALJIT KAUR & OTHERS ....Appellants
Versus
UNION OF INDIA & OTHERS ...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHVIR SINGH RATHOR
Present : Mr. Bikramjit Singh Baath, Advocate for the appellants.
Ms. Neha Sharma, Senior Panel Counsel for UOI.
YASHVIR SINGH RATHOR. J.(Oral)
1. This appeal has been instituted by claimants for enhancement of
compensation against the Award dated 05.03.2002 passed by the MACT,
Kapurthala ( for short “Tribunal” ) in MACT case No.32 of 1996 in a petition
under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ( for short ‘Act’ ) vide which a
sum of Rs.6,16,000/- has been awarded as compensation to the claimants along
with interest at the rate of 8% per annum from the date of filing of claim petition
till realization on account of death of Sukhwinder Singh Sandhu in a motor
vehicle accident.
2. From the pleadings of parties, following issues were framed:-
1. Whether the death of Col. Sukhwinder Singh has occurred in
the accident on 26.11.1995 due to rash and negligent driving of
Military Jonga (jeep) No.BA-82-B-208857 driven by respondent
No.2?OPP
2. Whether the claimants are entitled to the compensation as
claimed by them? If so to what amount?OPP
3. Whether the claim petition is bad for non-joinder of necessary
AMANDEEP GOSAIN
2026.09.10 09:09
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this
order/judgment

FAO-4634-2002 (O&M)

- 2 -

parties?OPR
4. Whether the claim petition is not maintainable?
5. Whether the claimants have received the compensation due to
the accident from Military Authorities if so its effect?OPR
6. Relief.
3. Thereafter, the parties led evidence in support of their case.
4. After hearing the parties and going through the material on the file,
learned Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.6,16,000/- as compensation to the claimants
alongwith interest @ 8% per annum from the date of filing of claim petition till
realization.
5. Feeling aggrieved, the appeal in hand has been preferred. The
material on file has been perused and parties have been heard.
6. The only issue required to be determined in the present appeal relates
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.2 while driving the offending
jeep bearing No.BA-82-B-208857. 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.
7. Learned counsel for the appellants argued that the impugned award
vide which compensation of Rs.6,16,000/- 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 and future prospects have not been
AMANDEEP GOSAIN
2026.09.10 09:09
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this
order/judgment

FAO-4634-2002 (O&M)

- 3 -

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.
8. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent 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.
9. 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
AMANDEEP GOSAIN
2026.09.10 09:09
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this
order/judgment

FAO-4634-2002 (O&M)

- 4 -

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.
10. The present claim petition was instituted by wife and two children of
deceased namely Lt. Col. Sukhwinder Singh Sandhu, who had died in the accident
in question.
11. As per salary certificate Ex. P-1, the salary of the deceased was
Rs.11,754/- per month and his date of birth was 02.11.1953 as mentioned in the
last pay certificate Ex. P1 issued by the Army Authorities and no evidence to
prove to the contrary has been led by the respondents. Accordingly, it is held that
deceased was earning Rs.11,754/- per month .
12. The deceased died on 25.11.1995 and as such he was 42 years of age
at the time of his death. However, he was in permanent employment in the Army
and as such, 30% 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.15,280/- (Rs.11,754/- + Rs.3,526/-) out of
which a sum of Rs.500/- has to be deducted towards income tax and after
deducting the same, the monthly income comes out to Rs.14,780/- ((Rs.15,280/- −
Rs.500/-)
13. Deceased has left behind three dependents i.e. wife, son and
AMANDEEP GOSAIN
2026.09.10 09:09
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this
order/judgment

FAO-4634-2002 (O&M)

- 5 -

daughter , and as such, 1/3rd of the income 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 loss of dependency comes out to Rs.9,853/-
(Rs.14,780/- − Rs.4,927/-) and the annual loss of dependency comes out to
Rs.1,18,236/- to which multiplier of 14 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.16,55,304/- (Rs.1,18,236/- × 14).
14. 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 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 towards parental 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.17,30,304/- (Rs.16,55,304/- + Rs.75,000/-) .
15. Accordingly, the compensation to be awarded to the claimants is
assessed as under:-
S. No. Heads Amount
1. Age of deceased 42 years
2. Monthly income of deceased Rs.11,754/-
3. Future prospects @ 30% Rs.3,526/-
4. Monthly income after adding future Rs.15,280/-
prospects
5. Income tax deduction Rs.500/-
AMANDEEP GOSAIN
2026.09.10 09:09
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this
order/judgment

FAO-4634-2002 (O&M)

- 6 -

6. Monthly income after deduction of Rs.14,780/-
income tax
7. Deduction towards personal expenses Rs.4,927/-
@ 1/3rd
8. Monthly loss of dependency Rs.9,853/-
9. Annual loss of dependency Rs.1,18,236/-
10. Multiplier 14
11. Loss of dependency Rs.16,55,304/-
12. Compensation to claimant No.1 under Rs.35,000/-
conventional heads
13. Loss of parental consortium to Rs.40,000/-
claimants No.2 and 3
14. Total compensation Rs.17,30,304/-
15. Interest 9%
16. Resultantly, the appeal in hand is partly accepted with costs and claimants
are held entitled to a sum of Rs.17,30,304/- as compensation. The enhanced
compensation thus comes out to Rs.11,14,304/- (Rs.17,30,304/- - Rs.6,16,000/-)
(rounded off to Rs.11,14,000/-) 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 till realization payable by respondents jointly and severally. Out of the enhanced
compensation, a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- each along with proportionate interest be paid to
claimants No.2 and 3 (son and daughter of the deceased) while balance amount be paid
to claimant No.1 (wife) along with proportionate interest.
17. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed
of.
(YASHVIR SINGH RATHOR)
08.09.2026 JUDGE
amandeep
Whether speaking/reasoned. : Yes/No
Whether Reportable. : Yes/No
AMANDEEP GOSAIN
2026.09.10 09:09
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this
order/judgment