Anita and Others Vs Neeraj and Others

Prayer in this application f iled under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 read with section 151 CPC is for condonation of delay of 3 1 days in filing the accompanyin g appeal.

¶13

Heard.

¶14

For the reasons mentioned in the application which is supported b y an affidavit, the same is al l owed and delay of 31 days in filing the p resent appeal is condoned. FAO-1551-2025

¶15

The appellant-claimants have filed the present appeal seeking enhancem e nt of the compensation amount of ₹25,90,500/- awarded by the learned M otor Accident Claims Tribun a l, Chandigarh (for short-‘the learned T r ibunal) vide impugned Awar d dated 14.10.2024, passed in petition be a ring MACP No. 352 dated 14. 0 7.2021 filed under Section 166 of the Mot o r Vehicles Act, 1988. The 04 c laimants are the: i) 41-year-old widow; ii ) 17-year-old son; iii) 16-year-old son; and iv) 64-year-old

¶16

RISHU KATARIA 2026.02.26 19:59 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment.

¶17

FAO-1551-2025 (O&M)

¶18

-2-

¶19

mother of deceased-Vijender Kumar @ B ajender Kumar, who was aged around 44 y ears at the time of accident.

¶20

Brief facts of the case are t h at the learned Tribunal on the basis of p leadings and evidence addu c ed before it concluded that deceased- V ijender Kumar, had died due t o injuries, suffered by him in a motor veh i cular accident that took place on 07.04.2021due to rash and negligent driving of Truck bearing registration No. HP-11-A-5826 (hereinafte r ‘the offending vehicle’) by r e spondent No.1-Neeraj; owned by respon d ent No. 2-Asha Devi; and i n sured by respondent No. 3- Insurance C ompany. Ld. Tribunal awarde d compensation as above along with inter e st @ 7% per annum from the d ate of filing the claim petition till actual realization. All respondents w ere held jointly and severally liable to p a y the compensation.

¶21

The only ground on which the appellant-claimants have sought en h ancement of compensation is t h at income of the deceased has been asses s ed on the lower side as ₹15,00 0 /- per month. Learned counsel for the ap p ellants submits that prior to t h e accident, the deceased was running a Readymade Garment Shop at B altana from which his annual income w a s ₹4,85,000/-. Although it is not argued, but a perusal of the Grounds o f Appeal shows that the appella n ts have sought enhancement on the groun d that future prospects ought to have been added @ 30%; that ₹1,00,000/ - each should have been award e d under the head of Love and Affection; and that interest ought to been a w arded @ 12% per annum. 4. No other argument is raised on behalf of the appellants. I have hear d learned counsel and perused t h e case file in detail. I find no

¶22

RISHU KATARIA 2026.02.26 19:59 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment.

¶23

FAO-1551-2025 (O&M) -3-

¶24

merit in t h e submissions made by lear n ed counsel for the appellantclaimants.

¶25

Perusal of the record shows t hat it was the pleaded case of the appell a nt-claimants before the learn e d Tribunal that prior to the accident d e ceased was running a Ready m ade Garment Shop at Baltana, from whic h the annual income of the dece a sed was ₹4,85,000/-. To prove their case, the appellants have produce d Income Tax Returns of the deceased f o r the Assessment Year 2016-1 7 Ex. P-5; and 2017-18 as Ex.P6, which s howed the annual income o f deceased as ₹2,41,740/- and ₹2,48,780/ - respectively. Admittedly, t h e deceased had expired on 07.04.202 1 . On a Court query as to why t he Income Tax Returns of the deceased f or the preceding 03 years i.e. 2 018-19, 2019-20 and 2020-21 have not been produced by the appell a nts, learned counsel for the appellant h as no reply. In this circumst a nce, the learned Tribunal has correctly assessed income of the deceased as ₹15,000/- per month for the following r easons: -

¶26

“9. ....The Income Tax R eturns Ex.P5 and Ex.P6 o f deceased Vijender Kumar al i as Bajender Kumar cannot be taken into consideration for a ssessing his income at the time of death, because there is no continuity and his income was apparently fluctuating as ev i dently no income tax returns were filed by him in the later years for the period immediately preceding his death. But in any case the deceased Vijender Kumar alias Bajender Kumar was engaged in Readymade Gar m ent business until his untimely demise in 2021 and despite t h e fluctuation being there in his earnings he demonstrates g o od financial status since was supporting his family well. I n determining the deceased’s income this Tribunal aims t o strike a balance between the

¶27

RISHU KATARIA 2026.02.26 19:59 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment.

¶28

FAO-1551-2025 (O&M)

¶29

-4-

¶30

earnings of a skilled worker and those of a business owner with entrepreneurial expert i se. And while doing so this Tribunal considers it to be ju s t and appropriate if the income of the deceased is assessed s o mewhat exceeding as to that o f a skilled labour in the given f a cts and circumstances. As such in the light of above discusse d facts this Tribunal assess the income of deceased as Rs. 15000/- per month .”

¶31

I find no error in the aforesaid reasoning of the Tribunal. Thus, income of the deceased has been c orrectly assessed as ₹15,000/– per month.

¶32

Further, the learned Tribunal had determined the age of the deceased a s 44 years at the time of accid e nt on the basis of Postmortem Report. A c cordingly, the Tribunal had cor r ectly made an addition of 25% towards f u ture prospects in conformit y with judgment of Hon’ble Supreme C ourt in National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi and others, (2017) 16 SCC 680 ; an d correctly applied multiplier of 14as per l a w laid down by the Hon’ble S upreme Court in Sarla Verma vs. Delhi Transport Corporation, Law Finder Doc Id # 188882. 8. As there were 04 claiman t s, deduction of 1/4^th towards personal e x penses of the deceased was c orrectly made by the learned Tribunal. Under the Conventional Hea d s, the learned Tribunal had awarded a n amount of ₹48,000/- to each o f the claimants towards loss of spousal c o nsortium (claimant No. 1- w idow); parental consortium (claimants No. 2 and 3); and filial con s ortium (claimant No. 4). The learned T r ibunal has further awarded an amount of ₹18,000/- towards funeral ex p enses and ₹18,000/- towards l o ss of estate. Thus, the learned

¶33

RISHU KATARIA 2026.02.26 19:59 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment.

¶34

FAO-1551-2025 (O&M)

¶35

-5-

¶36

Tribunal h a d granted total amount of ₹25, 9 0,500/- as compensation to the

¶37

appellant- c laimants in following manner: -

¶38

Annual Rs.15000x1 Gross Income 2	₹1,80,000/-
Addition of of future pr the age ofd 25% on account ospects in view of eceased	180000+450 00=2,25,000/-
Deduction of persona view ofsize of 1/4^thon account l expenditure in of family	225000-562 50=168750/-
Multipliero in view of ofdeath f 14 to be applied his age at the time	168750x14= 23,62,500/-
Compensat account ofd ion payable on ependency	₹23,62,500/ -
Loss of Est ate	₹18,000/-
Funeralexp enses	₹18,000/-
Loss of spo usal consortium	₹48,000/-(c laimant No.1)
Loss of par ental consortium	₹48,000x2= 3) ₹96,000/- (claimants No. 2 and
Loss of filia lconsortium	₹48,000/-(c laimant No.4)
Total Com with inter annum pensation along est @ 7% per	₹25,90,500/ -

¶39

From the above facts, it is c lear that a very just and fair

¶40

compensat i on has been awarded to the a ppellants. Nothing has been shown to t his Court that would merit in t erference with the impugned Award. N o doubt Chapter-12 of the Act is a beneficial legislation yet, as cautioned b y the Hon’ble Supreme Court, t he same cannot be allowed to be treated a s a windfall or a source of pro f it. Hon’ble 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. MahadevShetty’, (2003) 7 SCC 197, h a s held that the amount of compensat i on should be just and reaso n able, it should neither be a bonanza n o r a source of profit but at the same time it should not be a pittance. T h us, all that has to be determin e d in the facts of a given case

¶41

RISHU KATARIA 2026.02.26 19:59 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment.

¶42

-6-

¶43

FAO-1551-2025 (O&M)

¶44

is, that the compensation accorded is ‘jus t ’. In my considered view, in the prese n t case, the learned Tribunal has awarded a very ‘just’ compensat i on, which is in accordance w i th the law laid down by the Hon’ble S u preme Court and therefore, do e s not warrant the interference of this Co u rt. In the case of General Manager, KSRTC Vs. Susamma

¶45

Thomas & Others, 1994 Volume-II SCC 176 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that misplaced sympathy , generosity and benevolence cannot be t he guiding factor for determini n g the compensation.

¶46