Kamlesh Ishwar Dhilodh and Anr. Vs Parmod Kumar and Ors.

“2. That although the order was pronounced by the Ld. MACT, Hissar, on 02.04.2022 and the counsel for the appellant informed him but at that relevant time appellant family time to time suffered with covid 19 and remained under precautionary medication and treatment. Now, getting revealed from same, appellants approached the counsel for filling appeal. So, he could not file the appeal well within time on account of

¶21

SUNENA 2026.01.30 11:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶22

FAO-2458-2023 Page 2 of 5

¶23

ignorance of law and paucity of finds. Hence now the petitioner is filling the present appeal without any further delay.” The said averments of the applicant/appellant are vague and

¶24

general, and do not constitute sufficient cause for condonation of inordinate and extraordinary delay of 235 days in filing the present appeal. Present application accordingly stands dismissed .

¶25

MAIN CASE

¶26

Present appeal has been filed by the claimants seeking enhancement of compensation of Rs.15,42,280/- awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Hisar (hereinafter ‘the learned Tribunal’) vide Award dated 02.04.2022 passed in MACP Petition No.452 dated 16.12.2020 filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act (hereinafter “the Act”). The two claimants are the 45-year-old mother and 48-year-old father of deceased Mandeep, who was 21 years old at the time of accident.

¶27

Brief facts of the case are that the ld. Tribunal on the basis of pleadings and oral & documentary evidence adduced by the parties, concluded that deceased Mandeep had died due to the injuries suffered by him in a motor vehicular accident that took place on 15.09.2020 due to the rash and negligent driving of Haryana Roadways Bus bearing registration No.HR-67A-8869 (hereinafter “the offending vehicle”) being driven by respondent No.1, owned by respondent No.2 and insured by respondent No.3. The said compensation has been awarded along with interest @ 6%

¶28

SUNENA 2026.01.30 11:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶29

FAO-2458-2023 Page 3 of 5

¶30

per annum. Respondents were held jointly and severally liable for payment of compensation amount.

¶31

Learned counsel for the appellants seeks enhancement of compensation on the ground that as there were two claimants, deduction of 50% could not have been made and the same should have been 1/3^rd . Nothing has been granted for medical treatment and expenditure. Future prospects ought to have been added @ 50%. Interest should have been awarded @ 24%. Nothing has been awarded by way of transportation and mental agony and pain and suffering to the claimants. It is accordingly prayed that the impugned compensation be enhanced.

¶32

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent No.3/Insurance Company opposes the submissions advanced on behalf of the appellants and submit that the impugned Award suffers from no error; and the present appeal deserves to be dismissed.

¶33

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

¶34

It was the pleaded case of the claimants before the learned Tribunal that the deceased was a self-employed labourer at the time of accident and earning Rs.20,000/- per month. However, the appellants were unable to prove income or avocation of the deceased as alleged. Accordingly, the learned Tribunal had assessed notional income of the

¶35

SUNENA 2026.01.30 11:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶36

FAO-2458-2023 Page 4 of 5

¶37

deceased as Rs.9319.12/- per month rounded off to Rs.9400/- per month

¶38

as that of an unskilled labourer, on the basis of relevant Minimum Wage Notification dated 30.09.2020 issued by the Government of Haryana.

¶39

Age of the deceased was determined to be 21 years at the time of accident on the basis of his Post-Mortem Report (Ex.P4). Accordingly, the Tribunal had made an addition of 40% towards future prospects. Learned Tribunal applied multiplier of 18. As deceased was a Bachelor at the time of accident, deduction of 50% towards personal expenses was correctly made. Under the conventional heads, learned Tribunal has awarded Rs.16,500/towards transportation and funeral expenses; Rs.16,500/- towards loss of estate; and Rs.44,000/- each towards filial consortium; thereby granting

¶40

total compensation of Rs.15,42,280/-, in the following manner:-

¶41

Head	Amount
Loss of dependency	Rs.14,21,280/-
Transportation and last rites	Rs.16,500/-
Compensation on account of loss of estate	Rs.16,500/-
Compensation on account of	Rs.88,000/-
consortium
Total	Rs.15,42,280/-

¶42

From the above, it is clear that in the facts and circumstances

¶43

of the case, 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

¶44

SUNENA 2026.01.30 11:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶45

FAO-2458-2023 Page 5 of 5

¶46

the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the same cannot be allowed to be treated as a

¶47

windfall or a source of profit. Hon’ble Supreme Court in ‘ State of Haryana

¶48

& Another Vs. Jasbir Kaur & Others’ 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 the case of “General Manager, KSRTC Vs. Susamma Thomas & Others” 1994 Volume-II SCC 176, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that misplaced sympathy, generosity and benevolence cannot be the guiding factor for determining the compensation.

¶49

Thus, the present appeal accordingly stands dismissed on

¶50

grounds of delay as well as on merits.

¶51

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

¶52

27.01.2026 (Nidhi Gupta) Sunena Judge

¶53

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

¶54

SUNENA 2026.01.30 11:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Kamlesh Ishwar Dhilodh and Anr. v. Parmod Kumar and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kamlesh Ishwar Dhilodh and Anr. v. Parmod Kumar and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kanta and Ors. Vs Rinku and Ors.

Managing Director the Pb. St. Co-Op. Supply and Mark. Fed. Ltd. and Anr. Vs Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal and Anr.

Mohit Chauhan Vs Mikunj Arora and Anr.

Jan Mohd and Anr. Vs Mukhtiyar and Ors.

Satbir Vs Rameshwar and Ors.

Hardeep Singh Vs Shahid Khan and Ors.