High Court dismissed an appeal against the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal's award. The Court held that just and fair compensation was awarded as the claimants failed to place evidentiary proof of the deceased's higher alleged income.
Appellant's plea for enhancement of compensation from Rs.20,05,000 to a higher amount was dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Page 1 of 4
FAO 2777/2022
2023:PHHC:038661
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
FAO 2777/2022 Date of decision:14/03/2023
Shakuntla Rani and others
………………Appellants
Vs.
Sukhdev Singh and others
…………………Respondents
CORAM HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA
Present:Mr. Vishal Jassal, Advocate for Mr. Vivek Suri, Advocate for the appellants.
Nidhi Gupta, J.
Present appeal has been filed by the claimants seeking enhancement of compensation of Rs.20,05,000/- granted by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Fatehgarh Sahib (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Tribunal’) vide Award dated 12.4.2022 passed in MACP No.32/2019 filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act,1988 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’).
Brief facts of the case are that ld. Tribunal on appraisal of facts, pleading and evidence produced before it concluded that the deceased Mangat Ram had died due to injuries suffered by him in a motor vehicular accident that took place on 3.11.2018 due to rash and negligent driving of Truck bearing registration NO. HR-37D-2669 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the offending vehicle’) being driven by respondent no.1, owned by respondent no.2 and insured by respondent no.3 herein. Claimants are widow, mother
and three major children aged 31, 33 and 28 years respectively, of the RAJINDER PARSHAD JOSHI 2023.03.17 15:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
Page 2 of 4
FAO 2777/2022
2023:PHHC:038661
deceased Mangat Ram. Ld. Tribunal awarded compensation as above along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till realization. Respondents were held jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation.
Ld. Counsel seeks enhancement of compensation on the singular ground that the deceased was a Driver of Heavy Vehicles and was earning Rs.25,000/- per month as salary, however, ld. Tribunal has taken the salary of deceased as Rs.12,000/- per month only. It is submitted that sufficient evidence was led by the appellants/claimants to prove the income of the deceased, to which the respondents did not lead any evidence in rebuttal. It is submitted that therefore, ld. Tribunal has taken the income of the deceased as Rs.12,000/- only by applying guess work.
No other argument has been raised on behalf of the
claimants.
Heard ld. Counsel.
Perusal of the record of the case shows that the ld. Tribunal
has clearly recorded in para 15 of the impugned Award that: -
15.Now, coming to the income of the deceased. It is claimed by the claimants that the deceased was working as a Driver of heavy vehicle i.e. canter bearing registration no. PB-11T-MP-1326 of Harpreet Singh, who was running dairy with name of New Punjab Dairy, Rajpura and supplied Amul Milk to the locality. The deceased was drawing salary of Rs.25,000/- per month. To prove the income of the deceased, the claimants have not placed on record any proof regarding income of the deceased. Even the said Harpreet Singh on whose dairy the deceased was
RAJINDER PARSHAD JOSHI 2023.03.17 15:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
Page 3 of 4
FAO 2777/2022 2023:PHHC:038661
allegedly working as driver has not been examined. Therefore, for the purpose of this claim petition income of the deceased is assessed as Rs.12,000/- per month, being driver. Since the deceased was married at the time of his death and considering the number of dependents of deceased, i.e. widow, three children and mother, who are the claimants, 1/4th of the earnings of the deceased is to be deducted, on account of personal expenses.” (Emphasis supplied)
Ld. Counsel for the appellants is unable to controvert the
above said findings of the ld. Tribunal.
Further perusal of the Award shows that ld. Tribunal has
awarded compensation as under:-
| Sr.No. | Heads of claim | Amount |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Annual income | Rs.12,000 x 12 = 1,44,000 |
| 2 | 25% futureprospects | Rs.36,000/- |
| 3 | Total amount income of deceased |
Rs.1,80,000/- |
| 4 | Personal and living expenses(1/4th) |
Rs.45,000/- |
| 5 | Income after deduction of personal and livingexpenses |
Rs.1,35,000/- |
| 6. | Multiplier | 13(Thirteen) |
| 7 | Loss of dependency | Rs.1,35,000x13 = Rs.17,55,000/- |
| 8. | Funeral expenses | Rs.15,000/- |
| 9 | Loss of Estate | Rs.15,000/- |
| 10. | Loss of consortium | Rs.44,000x5= Rs.2,20,000/- |
| Total | Rs.20,05,000/- |
In my view, the learned Tribunal has awarded just and fair compensation in the facts and circumstances of the case, and no case for interference is made out. No doubt Chapter-12 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is a beneficial legislation yet, as cautioned by the Hon’ble Supreme
RAJINDER PARSHAD JOSHI 2023.03.17 15:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
Page 4 of 4
FAO 2777/2022 2023:PHHC:038661
Court, the same cannot be allowed to be treated as a windfall or a source of profit. All that has to be determined in the facts of a given case is, that the compensation accorded is “just”. In my considered view, in the present case, the learned Tribunal has awarded a very “just” compensation, which is in accordance with the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and therefore does not warrant the interference of this Court. In case of KSRTC
Versus Susamma Thomas 1994 Volume-II SCC 176 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that misplaced sympathy, generosity and benevolence cannot be the guiding factor for determining the compensation.
Present Appeal accordingly, stands dismissed.
Pending application(s),if any, stand disposed of.
14/03/2023 (Nidhi Gupta) Joshi Judge Whether speaking/reasoned Yes Whether reportable Yes/No
RAJINDER PARSHAD JOSHI 2023.03.17 15:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the Compensation Tribunal acted arbitrarily by assessing the deceased's monthly salary at Rs.12,000/- despite a claim of Rs.25,000/- when no evidentiary proof of the higher income was placed o
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
KSRTC Versus Susamma ThomasReferred¶41
KSRTC Versus Susamma Thomas 1994 Volume-II SCC 176 · Who else cites this
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Shakuntla Rani and others
Sukhdev Singh and others
Nidhi Gupta
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
