Partly allowed

Bishni Devi and Ors. v. Surinder Khanna and Anr.

Punjab & Haryana HC13 Jul 2026FAO/2155/2002

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Claimants sought enhancement of compensation of Rs.70,000 awarded for death of a 70-year-old dairy farmer killed in a motor accident caused by rash and negligent driving. The High Court reassessed income at Rs.2,500 per month, applied multiplier of 5 and conventional heads, enhancing compensation to Rs.3,02,500.

What did the court decide?

Enhanced compensation of Rs.2,33,000 over Tribunal award, total Rs.3,02,500 with 9% interest jointly and severally payable; Rs.25,000 each to children, remainder to widow.

Bishni Devi and Ors. Vs Surinder Khanna and… — Motor Accident Claims | Punjab & Haryana HC (2026)

¶1

FAO-2155-2002 (O&M) Date of decision: 13.07.2026

¶2

273

¶3

BISHNI DEVI AND ORS.

¶4

....APPELLANTS

¶5

VERSUS

¶6

SURINDER KHANNA AND ANR.

¶7

...RESPONDENTS

¶8

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHVIR SINGH RATHOR

¶9

Present : Ms. Ekta Thakur, Advocate, Ms. Pawandeep Kaur, Advocate and Ms. Kesar Arora, Advocate for the appellants.

¶10

Mr. Vinod Gupta, Advocate for respondent No.2-Insurance Company.

¶11

YASHVIR SINGH RATHOR. J.(Oral)

¶12

This appeal has been instituted by claimants against the Award dated 03.01.2002 passed in MACT case No.6 decided by the MACT, Chandigarh ( for short “Tribunal” ) for enhancement of compensation in a petition under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 vide which a sum of Rs.70,000/- 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 Rattu Ram in a motor vehicular accident which took place due to rash and negligent driving on the part of respondent No.1 (owner-cum-driver) while driving the offending vehicle bearing No.CH-01-8790 ( for short ‘offending vehicle’ ), which was insured with respondent No.2.

¶13

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

¶14

Tribunal:-

¶15

VISHAL VARDHAN 2026.07.14 18:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶16

Maruti Zen No.CH-01-8790 because of rash and negligent driving of respondent No.1? OPP.

¶17

2. If issue No.1 is proved, whether petitioners are entitled to compensation? If so, to what amount and from whom?OPP.”

¶18

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

¶19

After hearing the parties and going through the material on the file, learned Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.70,000/- as compensation to the claimants, on account of death of Rattu Ram along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of claim petition till realization.

¶20

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

¶21

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 had occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of offending vehicle on the part of respondent No.1 (ownercum-driver) which was insured with respondent No.2 and they 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.

¶22

Learned counsel for the appellants argued that the impugned award vide which compensation of Rs.70,000/- 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

¶23

VISHAL VARDHAN 2026.07.14 18:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶24

heads i.e. loss of consortium, loss of estate and funeral expenses and he prayed that compensation be awarded under all the heads and same 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 .

¶25

On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents argued that the adequate compensation has been awarded by the learned Tribunal and no interference in the said award is called for and appeal in hand be dismissed.

¶26

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

¶27

VISHAL VARDHAN 2026.07.14 18:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶28

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.

¶29

As per version of claimants, deceased was husband of claimant No.1 and father of claimants No.2 to 4, who was 70 years of age and they all were dependent upon him. The accident had taken place on 03.12.1999. As per version of claimants, deceased was engaged in business of dairy farming and he used to earn Rs.4,500-4,600/- per month. However, the Tribunal after taking into consideration the evidence led on file assessed monthly income of deceased to be Rs.1,800/- per month. Hon’ble Supreme Court in (2022) 1 SCC 198, Chander 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 and in such cases, the Court is required to ensure just compensation based on preponderance of probabilities. Minimum wage notification may serve as a yardstick but cannot be the sole basis for assessing the income. Moreover, it is also well settled that where the victim/deceased belongs to unorganized, strict proof of income is not mandatory and notional income can be reasonably assessed based on the social status and facts and circumstances of the case.

¶30

11. In the present case, the accident had taken place in the year 1999, it can be assumed that deceased must be earning at least Rs.2,500/- per month by selling milk. Thus the income of deceased shall be taken as Rs.2,500/- per month as against Rs.1,800/- per month assessed by the Tribunal.

¶31

VISHAL VARDHAN 2026.07.14 18:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶32

Tribunal and thus, no future prospects are to be added in the monthly income of the deceased.

¶33

The petition in hand has been instituted by wife and three children of the deceased. Accordingly, it is held that deceased has left behind 4 dependents and 1/4th of the income thus has to be deducted towards personal and living expenses. After deducting a sum of Rs.625/- towards personal expenses, the monthly loss of dependency comes out to Rs.1,875/- (Rs.2,500/- - Rs.625/-) and the annual loss of dependency comes out to Rs.22,500/- .

¶34

As per guidelines laid down in Sarla Verma’s case (supra) , multiplier of 5 has to be applied as deceased was 70 years of age and after applying the same, the compensation comes to Rs.1,12,500/- (Rs.22,500/- X 5).

¶35

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). Likewise, remaining claimants No.2 to 4 who are children of deceased are also held entitled to a sum of Rs.40,000/- each on account of loss of parental 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.3,02,500/- .

¶36

Accordingly, the compensation to be awarded to the appellants/claimants is assessed as under:-

¶37

S.No. 1.	Under Head Age of deceased	Compensation Assessed by this High Court 70 years

¶38

VISHAL VARDHAN 2026.07.14 18:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶39

Resultantly, the appeal in hand is partly accepted with costs and appellants/claimants are held entitled to a sum of Rs.3,02,500/- as compensation. The enhanced compensation thus comes out to Rs.2,32,500/- (Rs.3,02,500/- - Rs.70,000/-) rounded off to Rs.2,33,000/- over and above the compensation awarded by the Tribunal alongwith interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of claim petition i.e. 02.03.2000, till realization payable by respondents, jointly and severally. Out of the enhanced compensation, a sum of Rs.25,000/- each be paid to the children along with interest and remaining amount to claimant No.1/wife along with proportionate interest.

¶40

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

¶41

VISHAL VARDHAN 2026.07.14 18:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶42

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.

¶43

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

¶44

(YASHVIR SINGH RATHOR) 13.07.2026 JUDGE Vishal Vardhan

¶45

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

¶46

VISHAL VARDHAN 2026.07.14 18:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Bishni Devi and Ors. v. Surinder Khanna and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bishni Devi and Ors. v. Surinder Khanna and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Krishna Devi Vs Manoj Kumar

Murti Devi and Others. Vs Manoj Kumar

Gurudwara Shri Tahliana Sahib, Raikot, Ludhiana Vs Surjit Kaur

Monica and Ors. Vs Vijay Lal and Ors.

Gurpreet Vs Makhan Lal

Satnam Kaur Vs Surinder Singh