Dismissed¶51

Smt. Banarsi Devi v. Santosh Kumar and Others

Motor Accident Claims – Enhancement

Punjab & Haryana HC11 Nov 2025FAO/2184/2019

Download

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

FAO-2184-2019 enhancement appeal dismissed; MACT Narnaul Award 27.08.2018; Section 166 Motor Vehicles Act; death of Bhoop Singh (75), accident 17.07.2017, vehicle JH-02R-0227; widow claimant Banarshi Devi; family pension Rs.9,750 p.m. deductible; deceased pension Rs.9,300 p.m.; agricultural income unproved; loss of dependency denied; consortium/funeral/estate heads affirmed; Lal Dei distinguished; Vishavjit Singh, ICICI Lombard v. Priya PS, Krishna v. Tek Chand, Jasbir Kaur, Mahadeva Shetty, Susamma Thomas relied on; windfall/bonanza doctrine; no interest awarded; delay condonation CM-6701-CII-2019.

What did the court decide?

Appeal dismissed; no enhancement of compensation. Delay of 28 days in refiling condoned (CM-6701-CII-2019 allowed); pending applications disposed of. ¶51

Smt. Banarsi Devi Vs Santosh Kumar and Others — Motor Accident Claims | Punjab & Haryana HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Appeal dismissed; no enhancement of compensation. Delay of 28 days in refiling condoned (CM-6701-CII-2019 allowed); pending applications disposed of.

¶51

Issue for consideration

Whether the compensation of Rs.70,000/- awarded by the Tribunal to the sole claimant warranted enhancement. +2 more

¶20

Ratio / Principle

Application CM-6701-CII-2019 allowed: delay of 28 days in refiling the accompanying appeal is condoned.

¶18

Key takeaways

The Tribunal correctly held that the appellant had not suffered any financial loss due to the death of the deceased, she admittedly receiving family pension of Rs.9,750/- p.m. after his death while his proved income was pension of only Rs.9,300/- p.m.ratio¶36
Reliance on Lal Dei v. Himachal Road Transport (supra) is misplaced, that judgment being distinguishable on facts and law.ratio¶36
Consistent with Vishavjit Singh and ICICI Lombard v. Priya PS, where the deceased was a pensioner with no proved independent income the family pension received by the widow is deductible; the appellant having produced no document of agricultural income, she was not entitled to compensation under the head of loss of dependency.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Motor Accident Claims – Enhancement – Family pension deduction (High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Nidhi Gupta, J., 11.11.2025): Sole claimant-widow's FAO seeking enhancement of Rs.70,000/- compensation (Award dated 27.08.2018, MACT Narnaul, MACT Case No. 127/30.10.2017, s.166 Motor Vehicles Act) for death of 75-year-old pensioner Bhoop Singh (accident 17.07.2017, vehicle No.JH-02R-0227) DISMISSED. Held: Tribunal correctly found no financial loss — widow receives family pension of Rs.9,750/- p.m. (Ex.PW3/C) against deceased's proved pension of Rs.9,300/- p.m. (Ex.PW3/B); no agricultural income proved, hence no loss-of-dependency component; fixed heads of Rs.40,000/- consortium, Rs.15,000/- funeral expenses and Rs.15,000/- loss of estate left untouched. Lal Dei distinguished on facts and law; Vishavjit Singh (SC, 21.05.2025), ICICI Lombard v. Priya PS (P&H), Krishna v. Tek Chand (SC, 05.02.2024), Jasbir Kaur, Mahadeva Shetty and Susamma Thomas relied upon — family pension is deductible/not additive and compensation must be just and reasonable, neither bonanza nor pittance, misplaced sympathy not the guiding factor. 28 days' refiling delay condoned (CM-6701-CII-2019).

¶1

FAO-2184-2019 (O&M) 1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶3

115 FAO-2184-2019 (O&M) Date of decision: 11.11.2025

¶4

Smt. Banarshi Devi

¶5

...Appellant(s)

¶6

Vs.

¶7

Santosh Kumar and others ...Respondent(s)

¶8

CORAM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA

¶9

Present:Mr.Amandeep Rana, Advocate for the appellant.

¶10

Mr. H.S.Gharoo, Advocate for Mr. Amit Kumar Goyal, Advocate for respondent No.3-Insurance Co.

NIDHI GUPTA, J.

CM-6701-CII-2019

Prayer in this application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation

¶15

Act read with Section 151 CPC is for condonation of delay of 28 days in

¶16

refiling the accompanying appeal.

¶17

Heard.

¶18

For the reasons mentioned in the application which is duly supported by an afÏdavit of Clerk of learned counsel for the applicant/appellant, the same is allowed and delay of 28 days in refiling the accompanying appeal is condoned.

¶19

FAO-2184-2019 (O&M)

¶20

The present appeal has been filed by the sole claimant seeking enhancement of compensation of Rs.70,000/- awarded by the learned

¶21

DIVYANSHI 2025.11.13 10:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶22

FAO-2184-2019 (O&M) 2

¶23

Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Narnaul (hereinafter referred to as “the learned Tribunal”) vide Award dated 27.08.2018 passed in MACT Case No. 127 dated 30.10.2017 filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”). The sole claimant is the widow of the deceased Bhoop Singh, who was about 75 years old at the time of accident. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the learned Tribunal on the basis of pleadings and evidence adduced before it concluded that deceased-Bhoop Singh had died due to the injuries suffered by him in motor vehicular accident that took place on 17.07.2017 due to the rash and negligent driving of Vehicle bearing registration No.JH-02R-0227 (hereinafter “the offending vehicle”) being driven by respondent No.1; owned by respondent No.2; and insured by respondent No.3. All the respondents were held liable to pay the said compensation jointly and severally.

¶24

The learned counsel for the appellant assails the impugned Award by submitÝng that the learned Tribunal has not awarded any interest on the compensation amount. It is submitted that the appellant was entitled to interest on the compensation amount. It is further submitted that it is admitted fact on record that the deceased was getÝng pension of Rs.9,300/-p.m. As such, appellant could not have been denied compensation merely because she was also receiving pension amount. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the appellant relies upon judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Lal Dei v. Himachal Road

¶25

DIVYANSHI 2025.11.13 10:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶26

FAO-2184-2019 (O&M) 3

¶27

Transport, (SC) : Law Finder Doc Id # 187804 decided on 27.08.2007; holding that:

¶28

“ Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, Sections 168(1), 140 and 141 - Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, Sections 110B, 92A and 92B Claim for compensation for death in a bus accident - Tribunal deducted the family pension amount from the dependency of the claimants - Held - Claims tribunal as well as High Court could not have deducted the amount of family pension given to the family while calculation the dependency of the claimants - Order directing deduction of family pension set aside 1998(4) RCR (Civil) 177(SC) Relied.

¶29

It is accordingly prayed that the present Appeal be allowed;

¶30

and the compensation amount be enhanced to Rs.20 lacs along with interest @ 18% per annum.

¶31

Per contra, counsel for respondent No.3 opposes submissions made on behalf of the appellant and submits that the impugned Award suffers from no infirmity as the compensation awarded to the appellant is just and fair. Hence, present Appeal deserves to be dismissed.

¶32

No other argument is raised on behalf of the parties. I have heard ld. counsel and perused the case file in detail. I find no merit in the submissions advanced on behalf of the appellant.

¶33

The deceased was proved to be 75 years old at the time of accident, on the basis of his Postmortem Report Ex.PW4/D. It is the pleaded case of the appellant that the deceased was earning Rs.35,000/p.m. i.e. Rs.15,000/- p.m. as agricultural income and Rs.20,000/- by way of

¶34

DIVYANSHI 2025.11.13 10:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶35

FAO-2184-2019 (O&M) 4

¶36

pension. However, appellant had been unable to prove any income of the deceased from agricultural sources. Moreover, from the evidence on record, it was proved that the deceased was getÝng pension of only Rs.9,300/- p.m. as evident from document Ex.PW3/B. Admittedly, after death of Bhoop Singh, appellant as his widow is getÝng pension of Rs. 9,750/- p.m. as evident from Ex.PW3/C. Learned Tribunal therefore, correctly held that appellant had not suffered any financial loss due to death of the deceased. Reliance of the appellant upon the aforesaid judgment of Lal Dei (supra) is misplaced as the same is distinguishable on facts and law. Moreover, Hon’ble Supreme Court in more recent judgment

¶37

of Vishavjit Singh v. Cholamandalam Ms General Insurance Company Limited, (SC) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2753589 , decided on 21.05.2025, has held as under: -

¶38

“9. The issue with regard to the reduction of the deceased's income from Rs. 22,712/- (Rupees Twenty Two Thousand Seven Hundred Twelve) per month to Rs. 6,500/-(Rupees Six Thousand Five Hundred) per month, upon scrutiny, appears to be justified. Since, the deceased was a pensioner and there was no evidence of any independent source of income, the High Court has rightly held that the amount being received by the widow as family pension had to be deducted. Accordingly, we find no ground to interfere with the income of the deceased as assessed by the High Court at Rs. 6,500/(Rupees Six Thousand Five Hundred) per month.” (Emphasis added)

¶39

DIVYANSHI 2025.11.13 10:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶40

FAO-2184-2019 (O&M) 5

¶41

Reference is also made to a judgment passed by this Court in ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Ltd. v. Priya PS, (Punjab And

¶42

Haryana) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2804935 ; wherein it is held that “ Compensation in motor accident cases - Family pension cannot be added to the income of deceased for determining loss of dependency - Only notional income of deceased as determined by Tribunal to be considered.” 9. Reference is also made to judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Krishna & Ors. - Versus Tek Chand & Ors. (SC); Law Finder Doc Id

¶43

# 2531576, decided on 05.02.2024; wherein it is held as under:-

¶44

“6. …… In the case of a motor vehicle accidents, when negligence is proved, loss of dependency is compensated for the very same reason. In our view, there cannot be a duplication in payments or a windfall owing to a misfortune. In another words, on the death of the person in harness, owing to a road trafc accident the dependents of aÏ deceased cannot be doubly benefited as opposed to those who are dependents of a deceased who dies owing to illness or any other reason under the Rules formulated by the Haryana Government.” (Emphasis added)

¶45

Further, appellant had been unable to produce any document of agricultural income. Therefore, the appellant was held not entitled to any compensation under the head of loss of dependency. Learned Tribunal had accordingly awarded amount of Rs.40,000/- towards loss of consortium; Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenses; and Rs.15,000/towards loss of estate. I find no error in the same.

¶46

DIVYANSHI 2025.11.13 10:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶47

FAO-2184-2019 (O&M) 6

¶48

From the above facts, it is clear that a very just and fair compensation has been awarded to the appellants. Nothing whatsoever has been shown to this Court that would merit enhancement of the compensation granted to the appellants. No doubt Chapter-12 of the Act is a beneficial legislation yet, as cautioned by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the same cannot be allowed to be treated as a windfall or a source of profit. Hon’ble Supreme Court in ‘ State of Haryana Vs. Jasbir Kaur’ Law Finder Doc ID # 64043 and ‘Divisional Controller K.S.R.T.C. Vs. Mahadeva Shetty’ (2003) 7 SCC 197, has held that the amount of compensation should be just and reasonable, it should neither be a bonanza nor a source of profit but at the same time it should not be a pittance. In case of

¶49

‘General Manager, KSRTC Vs. Susamma Thomas and others (1994) 2 SCC

¶50

176, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that misplaced sympathy, generosity and benevolence cannot be the guiding factor for determining the compensation.

¶51

12 Dismissed.

¶52

Pending application(s) if any also stand(s) disposed of.

¶53

11.11.2025 (NIDHI GUPTA) Divyanshi JUDGE

¶54

Divyanshi

¶55

Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether reportable: Yes/No

¶56

DIVYANSHI 2025.11.13 10:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Smt. Banarsi Devi v. Santosh Kumar and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Banarsi Devi v. Santosh Kumar and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mohit Vs Vinay Kumar Irps Secretary Hssc

Santosh Kumari Vs Jagdish Singh and Ors.

Ganesh Sharma Vs Ashok Sharma & Ors.

Balwinder Kaur and Anr. Vs Deepak Kumar and Ors.

S.P Singla Construction Pvt. Ltd. Vs Bbr (India) Pvt. Ltd. and Others

SHO Chand Vs Ram Kumar Since Deceased through Lrs and Anr.