Sukhpal Kaur and Ors. Vs Inderjit Singh and… — Motor Accident Claims | Punjab & Haryana HC (2025)

Sukhpal Kaur and Ors. Vs Inderjit Singh and… — Motor Accident Claims | Punjab & Haryana HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

Issue for consideration

Whether the compensation of Rs.17,35,300/- awarded by the learned Tribunal required enhancement on the appellants' grounds that the deceased's income was taken on the lower side at only Rs.10,000/- per month, future prospects were added only at 40%, deduction of 1/4th ought to have been made instead of 1/3rd, and the multiplier of 15 deserved enhancement.

Court's answer

The learned Tribunal correctly took the deceased's income as Rs.10,000/- per month, since the pleaded higher income was not proved by any income-tax return, bank statement or ledger entry; this Court finds no error in it.

Ratio / Principle

Addition of 40% towards future prospects was correctly made, the deceased being 39 years old at the time of death.

Key takeaways

Multiplier of 15 was correctly applied.ratio¶20
Deduction of 1/3rd towards personal expenses was correctly made as the claimants are three in number.ratio¶20
Chapter-12 of the Act, though beneficial legislation, cannot be allowed to be treated as a windfall or a source of profit, as cautioned by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.ratio¶24

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Motor Accident Claims — Enhancement refused. Appellants/claimants appealed against the Award dated 05.11.2018 (MAC File No.27 dated 01.8.2017) of the MACT, Bathinda, whereby Rs.17,35,300/- was awarded under Section 166 MV Act for the death of a 39-year-old. Grounds: income taken low at Rs.10,000/- per month, future prospects only 40%, 1/3rd (instead of 1/4th) deduction, and multiplier of 15. Held: the claimed income of Rs.70,000/- per month (Rs.20,000/- from plying a three-wheeler on hire plus Rs.50,000/- from six acres of land) stood unproved — no income-tax return, bank statement or ledger entry was produced — hence assessment at Rs.10,000/- per month, 40% future prospects, multiplier 15 and 1/3rd deduction were all correct; Rs.55,000/- had been awarded under conventional heads. Chapter-12 of the Act is beneficial legislation but cannot be a windfall or source of profit (State of Haryana v. Jasbir Kaur; Divisional Controller K.S.R.T.C. v. Mahadev Shetty (2003) 7 SCC 197; General Manager, KSRTC v. Susamma Thomas 1994 Volume-II SCC 176; Reshma Kumari v. Madan Mohan 2013(5) Scale 160). The award was 'just' and warranted no interference; appeal dismissed, pending applications disposed. None appeared for the appellants at any stage.

FAO-3586-2019 (O & M)

1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

117

FAO No.3586 of 2019 (O & M) Date of decision: -26.08.2025

Sukhpal Kaur and others

…..Appellants

Versus

Inderjeet Singh and others

…..Respondents

CORAM:- HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA

Present:None for the appellants.

NIDHI GUPTA J. (Oral)

Present appeal has been file d by the appellants/claimants seeking e nhancement of compensation of Rs.17,35,300/- awarded by the learn e d Motor Accident Claims Trib u nal, Bathinda (hereinafter to be referr e d as ‘the learned Tribunal’) v ide impugned Award dated 05.11.20 1 8 passed in MAC File No.27 d ated 01.8.2017, filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1 9 88.

Order sheets reveal that the r e has been no representation on behal f of appellants since the ince p tion of the present Appeal. Today al s o there is no representation on b ehalf of appellants. Clearly, neither t h e appellant nor their counsel are seriously interested in pursuing the present Appeal. Accordin g ly, the appeal being of the year 201 9 is being disposed of by this C ourt after perusing the case file and t h e record in minute detail.

VIJAY ASIJA 2025.08.28 09.13 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

FAO-3586-2019 (O & M) 2

Perusal of the Grounds of Appeal reveals that enhance m ent of compensation has bee n sought on the ground that income o f the deceased has been ta k en on lower side as only Rs.10,00 0 /- per month; and future prospects has been added only @ 40%. It i s further averred that enhance m ent is made out in favour of the appellants in view of the fact that 1/4^th deduction ought to have been ma d e whereas 1/3^rd has been ma d e; and multiplier of 15 has been app l ied and the same deserves to be enhanced.

However, a perusal of the i m pugned Award reveals that it was th e pleaded case of the appellants that the deceased was owner of the th r ee-wheeler and used to ply the same on hire basis and used to earn R s .20,000/- per month. Besides t h is the deceased was stated to be owning six acres of agricultural land from which he was stated to be earni n g Rs.50,000/- per month; and t h erefore, the total income of the dece a sed was Rs.70,000/- per mont h . However, the said alleged income o f the deceased was not prov e d by the appellants as no income-t a x return, no statement of accou n t of any Bank, nor any other ledger e n try pertaining to the deceased were brought on record to prove hi s income. Therefore, the learn e d Tribunal has accordingly taken the income of the deceased as Rs. 1 0,000/- per month. I find no error in t h e same.

The age of the deceased is stated to be 39 years at the time of d e ath. Therefore, addition of 40 % towards future prospect has been cor r ectly made; and multiplier of 15 has also been correctly applied. A s the claimants are three in n umber, deduction of 1/3^rd is

VIJAY ASIJA 2025.08.28 09.13 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

FAO-3586-2019 (O & M) 3

also co r rectly made. Learned Trib u nal has further awarded Rs.55,00 0 /- under the conventional heads.

From the above facts, it is c lear that a very just and fair compens a tion has been awarded t o the appellants. Nothing whatsoever has been shown to thi s Court that would merit enhance m ent of the compensation grante d to the appellants. No doubt Chapter- 1 2 of the Act is a beneficial le g islation yet, as cautioned by the Hon’ b le Supreme Court, the same ca n not be allowed to be treated as a win d fall or a source of profit. Hon’ b le Supreme Court in ‘ State of Haryana & Another Vs. Jasbir Kaur & Others’ Law Finder Doc ID # 64043 and ‘Divisional Controller K.S.R.T.C. Vs. Mahadev Shetty’, (2003) 7 SCC 197, h as held that the amount of compens a tion should be just and reaso n able, it should neither be a bonanza n or a source of profit but at the same time it should not be a pittance. In my considered view, in t h e present case, the learned Tribunal has awarded a very ‘just’ c ompensation, which is in accordan c e with the law laid down by th e Hon’ble Supreme Court and therefore , does not warrant the interfere n ce of this Court. In the case of “General Manager, KSRTC Vs. Susamma Thomas & Others” 1994 Volume-II SCC 176, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that misplace d sympathy, generosity and b enevolence cannot be the guiding f a ctor for determining the compe n sation. 12. Further, a 3-Judge Bench judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of “Reshma Kumari v. Madan Mohan (SC) 2013(5) Scale 160; Law Finder Doc ID # 421379; has held that: “ M o tor Vehicles Act, 1988, Section 168 - Section 168 provides

VIJAY ASIJA 2025.08.28 09.13 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

FAO-3586-2019 (O & M)

4

that amo u nt of compensation awarded b y the Claims Tribunal which appears to it to be just - The expression, 'j ust' means that the amount so deter m ined is fair, reasonable and equitable by accepted legal standard s and not a forensic lottery - O b viously 'just compensation' does not mean 'perfect' or 'absolute' compensation - The just compens a tion principle requires exa m ination of the particular situation obtaining uniquely in an indivi d ual case.”

In view of the above, the present appeal is dismissed. Pending application(s), if an y also stand(s) disposed of.

August2 6 , 2025 ( NIDHI GUPTA ) Vijay Asija JUDGE

Whether sp e aking/reasoned Yes / No Whether Re p ortable Yes / No

VIJAY ASIJA 2025.08.28 09.13 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document