Anita Devi & Ors. Vs Malha Ram & Ors.

This appeal has been instituted against the Award dated 26.11.2002 passed in MACT case No.4 of 2000 decided by the MACT, Jhajjar ( for short “Tribunal” ) for enhancement of compensation in a petition under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 vide which a sum of Rs.3,60,000/- has been awarded as compensation to the claimants alongwith interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of claim petition till realization on account of death of Shamsher Singh in a motor vehicular accident which took place due to rash and negligent driving on the part of respondent No.1 while driving the offending vehicle bearing No.RJ-07-G-2340 ( for short ‘offending vehicle’ ), owned by respondent No.3 and insured with respondent No.4.

¶13

It is pertinent to mention that initially respondent No.2-Bhagirath was impleaded in the claim petition in his capacity as owner of the offending truck but he was given up by learned counsel for the claimants as respondent No.3 was the

¶14

VISHAL VARDHAN 2026.07.02 19:05 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶15

FAO-1650-2003 (O&M)

¶16

- 2 -

¶17

owner/insured of the offending truck.

¶18

From the pleadings of parties, following issues were framed by the ld.

¶19

Tribunal:-

¶20

“1. Whether the accident resulting into death of Shamsher Singh had taken place due to rash and negligent driving of truck No.RJ-07/G-2340 by its driver respondent No.1? OPP.

¶21

2. If issue No.1 is proved whether the petitioners are entitled to compensation, if so, how much and from whom? OPP

¶22

3. Whether the respondent No.1 was not having a valid driving license on the date of accident. If so to what effect ? OPR.

¶23

4. Relief.”

¶24

Thereafter, the parties led evidence in support of their case.

¶25

After hearing the parties and going through the material on the file, learned Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.3,60,000/- as compensation to the claimants, on account of death of Shamsher Singh along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of claim petition till realization.

¶26

Feeling aggrieved, the appeal in hand has been preferred. The material on file has been perused and parties have been heard.

¶27

It is pertinent to mention that the record of the present appeal and the Tribunal has got burnt in a fire incident in the High Court Registry and the present appeal has to be decided on the basis of the facts and evidence discussed by the Tribunal in the impugned award.

¶28

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 occurred due to the rash and

¶29

VISHAL VARDHAN 2026.07.02 19:05 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶30

vehicle, owned by respondent No.3 and insured with respondent No.4 and respondents No.1, 3 and 4 have been held liable to pay compensation jointly and severally. 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.

¶31

Learned counsel for the appellants argued that the impugned award vide which compensation of Rs.3,69,000/- 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 contended that income of the deceased has been assessed on lower side. Future prospects have also not been added to the monthly income of the deceased contrary to settled provisions of law. Learned counsel further contended that deceased was 30 years of age and multiplier of 17 should have been applied. No compensation has been paid under conventional heads i.e. loss of consortium and loss of estate, whereas compensation awarded under head of funeral expenses is on lower side and he prayed that compensation be awarded under all the heads and same should be suitably enhanced. In support of his contentions, learned counsel 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 and (2021) 11 SCC 780 , United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Satinder Kaur .

¶32

On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents argued that the adequate compensation has been awarded by the learned Tribunal and no

¶33

VISHAL VARDHAN 2026.07.02 19:05 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶34

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 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.

¶35

As per version of claimants, deceased Shamsher Singh was working as a driver on the truck of one Jagbir Singh and getting a salary of Rs.5,000/- per month, besides Rs.50/- per day as diet money.

¶36

To prove his income and occupation, claimants have examined PW2 Rakesh Kumar, Clerk, who stated that deceased was having a valid driving licence for driving Heavy Goods Vehicles. PW3 Jagbir Singh owner of the truck deposed that Shamsher Singh was getting Rs.5,000/- per month as salary, besides Rs.50/-

¶37

VISHAL VARDHAN 2026.07.02 19:05 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶38

deposed that deceased was being paid Rs.5,000/- per month as salary besides Rs.50/- per day as diet money and he tendered the certificate Ex.P10 issued by his brother Jagbir Singh. Learned Tribunal came to the conclusion that no evidence has been led by the respondents to prove to the contrary and it was held that deceased was employed as a driver on a Heavy Goods Vehicle (Truck). However, the certificate Ex.P10 with regard to payment of salary of Rs.5,000/- per month was not believed and the same was ignored on the ground that it has not been put to PW Jagbir Singh when he stepped into the witness box who had issued the same. Thereafter, the Tribunal held that deceased must be earning Rs.80/- per day i.e. Rs.2,400/- per month and assessed his monthly income to be Rs.2,400/- per month. However, Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.6152 of 2021 - Chandra alias Chander alias Chanda Ram and another Vs. Mukesh Kumar Yadav , decided vide judgment dated 01.10.2021 has held that merely because claimants are unable to produce documentary evidence to show the monthly income of the deceased is not a ground to discard the oral evidence. Hon’ble Supreme Court while deciding Civil Appeal No.15021 of 2024 titled Karamjit Singh Vs. Amandeep Singh and another vide judgment dated 17.12.2024 has held that a carpenter has to be treated as a skilled person and it will be unfair to classify a carpenter as an unskilled worker. Hon’ble Supreme Court in 2019 (5) RCR (Civil) 884, Chameli Devi and others Vs. Jivrali Mian and others , has assessed the monthly income of a carpenter to be Rs.5000/- per month in the year 2001 and it was further held that in such cases where deceased is engaged in such type of profession, claimants can only lead oral evidence.

¶39

In the present case, the accident had taken place on 07.06.2000 and

¶40

VISHAL VARDHAN 2026.07.02 19:05 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶41

must be earning at least Rs.3,500/- per month and some amount of guess work thus has to be applied while assessing the monthly income. Learned Tribunal has thus gravely erred while assessing his monthly income to be Rs.2,400/- per month only, which is on lower side. Accordingly, income of deceased is taken as Rs.3,500/- per month.

¶42

Deceased was 30 years of age as has also been held by the learned Tribunal and as such, 40% 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.4.900/- per month (Rs.3,500/- + Rs.1,400/-).

¶43

The petition in hand has been instituted by wife, three minor children and mother of the deceased. Accordingly, it is held that deceased has left behind 5 dependents and 1/4th of the income thus has to be deducted towards personal and living expenses as per law laid down in Sarla Verma’s case (supra) . After deducting a sum of Rs.1,225/- towards personal expenses, the monthly loss of dependency comes out to Rs.3,675/- (Rs.4,900/- - Rs.1,225/-) and the annual loss of dependency comes out to Rs.44,100/- (Rs.3,675/- X 12) .

¶44

As per guidelines laid down in Sarla Verma’s case (supra) , multiplier of 17 has to be applied as deceased was 30 years of age and after applying the same, the compensation comes to Rs.7,49,700/- (Rs.44,100/- X 17).

¶45

In addition to this, claimant No.1 (wife of the deceased) is held entitled to a sum of Rs.70,000/- under 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, as per law laid down in Pranay Sethi’s case (supra).

¶46

VISHAL VARDHAN 2026.07.02 19:05 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶47

are also held entitled to a sum of Rs.40,000/- each on account of loss of parental and filial 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.9,79,700/- .

¶48

Accordingly, the compensation to be awarded to the

¶49

appellants/claimants is assessed as under:-

¶50

S.No.	Under Head	Compensation awarded by the High Court
1.	Monthly income of deceased	Rs.3,500/- per month
2.	Age of deceased	30 years
3.	Future prospects @ 40%	Rs.1,400/-
4.	Total income	Rs.4,900/- per month
5.	Number of dependents	5
6.	Deduction towards personal expenses of the deceased	Rs.1,225/-
7.	Annual loss of dependency	Rs.44,100/- (Rs.3,675/- X 12)
8.	Multiplier	17
9.	Compensation on account of Loss of dependency	Rs.7,49,700/-
10.	Compensation under conventional heads to claimant No.1.	Rs.70,000/-
11.	Consortium to three children and mother	Rs.1,60,000/- (Rs.40,000/- each)
	Total Compensation	Rs.9,79,700/-
	Interest	9%

¶51

Resultantly, the appeal in hand is partly accepted with costs and appellants/claimants are held entitled to a sum of Rs.9,79,700/- as compensation.

¶52

The enhanced compensation thus comes out to Rs.6,19,700/- (Rs.9,79,700/- -

¶53

VISHAL VARDHAN 2026.07.02 19:05 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶54

awarded by the Tribunal alongwith interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of claim petition i.e. 01.08.2000, till realization, payable by respondents No.1-Malha, 3-Bhika Ram Vishnoi and 4-United India Insurance Co. Ltd., jointly and severally. Out of the enhanced compensation, a sum of Rs.60,000/- each be paid to the children and mother of the deceased and remaining amount to claimant No.1/wife along with proportionate interest.

¶55

Registry is directed to email the authenticated copy of the award to the respondent Insurance Company in terms of directions issued by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Writ Petition (Civil) No.534 of 2020 titled Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Versus Union of India and others, decided on 16.03.2021 and Insurance Company shall comply with the directions as issued under Clause (F) of the said judgment.

¶56

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

¶57

02.07.2026	(YASHVIR SINGH RATHOR) JUDGE
Vishal Vardhan
Whether speaking/reasoned.	: Yes/No
Whether reportable.	: Yes/No

¶58

VISHAL VARDHAN 2026.07.02 19:05 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Anita Devi & Ors. v. Malha Ram & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

Anita Devi & Ors. v. Malha Ram & Ors.

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

Chander Singh Vs Anuj Arora and Others

Gurmeet Kaur Vs State of Haryana etc.

Master Imran Vs Dharam Singh etc.

Sudesh Kumari Vs Sube Singh

Kamal Mehandiratta Vs Jamuna Shaw and Ors.

Santosh Kumari Atreja and Others Vs Satish Kumar and Others