Kuleshta and Ors. Vs Jiya Lal and Ors.

This appeal has been instituted by claimants against the Award dated 06.02.2002 passed in MACT case No.245 of 2000 decided by the MACT, Fatehabad ( for short “Tribunal” ) in a petition under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 vide which a sum of Rs.5,12,000/- has been awarded as compensation to the claimants along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of claim petition till realization on account of death of Deepak Kumar in a motor vehicle accident.

¶15

From the pleadings of parties, following issues were framed:-

¶16

“1. Whether Deepak Kumar son of Chaman Lal resident of Bhuna died due to injuries suffered by him in a Motor Vehicular Accident on 27.12.99 and the accident occurred owing to rash and negligent driving of pick up No.UP-16-5207 by Satyawan by respondent No.2? OPP

¶17

2. Whether the petitioners are dependents of Sh. Deepak Kumar and they are entitled to any compensation? If so, from whom and to

¶18

AMANDEEP GOSAIN 2026.07.07 17:57 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment

¶19

FAO-2770-2002 (O&M)

¶20

- 2 -

¶21

what amount?OPP

¶22

3. Whether Satyawan was driving the pick up at the time of accident without obtaining an effective driving licence and the National Insurance Company Limited is not liable indemnify the insured on this ground?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.5,12,000/- as compensation to the claimants alongwith 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 had occurred due to the rash and negligent driving on the part of respondent No.2 while driving the offending vehicle bearing No.UP-16-5207, owned by respondent No.1. No appeal or crossobjections have been filed by respondents, challenging the said finding and accordingly finding on issue No.1 is not required to be interfered with.

¶29

AMANDEEP GOSAIN 2026.07.07 17:57 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment

¶30

FAO-2770-2002 (O&M)

¶31

- 3 -

¶32

Learned counsel for the appellants argued that the impugned award vide which compensation of Rs.5,12,000/- 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. No compensation has been paid under conventional heads i.e. loss of consortium and loss of estate and he prayed that compensation be awarded under all the heads and same should be suitably enhanced. In support of his contentions, learned counsel for the appellants 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 , (2021) 11 SCC 780 United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Satinder Kaur.

¶33

On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.3 argued that the award in question is well reasoned and justified. The material on file has been appreciated in the correct perspective while assessing the compensation and no interference in the same is thus called for.

¶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”

¶35

AMANDEEP GOSAIN 2026.07.07 17:57 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment

¶36

FAO-2770-2002 (O&M)

¶37

- 4 -

¶38

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.

¶39

As per version of claimants, as deposed by PW1 Chaman Lal, his deceased son was running the business of sale and purchase of wood. He used to purchase wood from fields and saw mills and sell the same at Delhi after hiring vehicles. He deposed that deceased owned one tractor, scooter and telephone connection in his name and he tendered in evidence registration certificate of scooter Mark A1, registration certificate of tractor Mark A2 and copy of telephone bill Ex. A3. He deposed that deceased used to earn about Rs.15,000/- per month from his business. Deceased had studied up to BA part-II and had secured 79% marks in matriculation examination and he was having diploma in Pharmacy. The matriculation certificate Mark A4 and diploma certificate of pharmacy Mark A6 have also been led in evidence, besides marksheet of B.A. part-II Mark A7. Learned Tribunal on appreciation of evidence came to the conclusion that

¶40

AMANDEEP GOSAIN 2026.07.07 17:57 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment

¶41

FAO-2770-2002 (O&M)

¶42

- 5 -

¶43

deceased was running the business of sale of wood and he also owned one tractor, scooter and one telephone connection in his own name and he was thus maintaining good status in his life. The Tribunal assessed his monthly income to be Rs.4,000/- per month. The accident in the present case had taken place on 26.12.1999. Deceased was holding a diploma in pharmacy and was doing business of sale and purchase of wood. He also owned one tractor, scooter as well as one telephone connection in his own name and in such cases, the Court is required to ensure just compensation based on preponderance of probabilities. Where the deceased belongs to unorganized sector, 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. 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.

¶44

In the present case, the accident had taken place in the year 1999 and it can be assumed that the deceased who was a businessman must be earning at least Rs.5,000/- per month. Learned Tribunal has thus gravely erred while assessing his monthly income to be Rs.4,000/- per month, which is on lower side. Accordingly, income of deceased is taken as Rs.5,000/- per month.

¶45

Deceased was 22 years of age 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.7,000/- (Rs.5,000/- + Rs.2,000/-).

¶46

AMANDEEP GOSAIN 2026.07.07 17:57 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment

¶47

FAO-2770-2002 (O&M)

¶48

- 6 -

¶49

The petition in hand has been instituted by wife, son and father of the deceased. Hon’ble Supreme Court in 2025 Livelaw (SC) 309, Sadhana Tomar & Ors. Vs. Ashok Kushwaha & Ors , has held that a legal representative is one, who suffers on account of death of a person due to motor vehicle accident and need not necessarily be a wife, husband, parent or child. The term legal representative under Motor Vehicles Act should not be given a narrow interpretation to exclude those persons as claimants who were dependent on the deceased’s income. The father and sister, being financially dependent were legal representatives under the Act entitling them to compensation. Accordingly, it is held that claimant No.3, who is the father, was also dependent upon his deceased son. Therefore, it is held that deceased has left behind three dependents i.e. wife, son and father , and 1/3rd 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 the same, the monthly loss of dependency comes out to Rs.4,667/- (Rs.7,000/- – Rs.2,333/-) and the annual loss of dependency comes out to Rs.56,004/- (Rs.4,667/- × 12).

¶50

15. Since deceased was 22 years of age, multiplier of 18 has to be applied in view of the guidelines laid down in Sarla Verma’s case (supra) , and after applying the same, the total loss of dependency comes out to Rs.10,08,072/(Rs.56,004/- × 18).

¶51

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).

¶52

AMANDEEP GOSAIN 2026.07.07 17:57 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment

¶53

FAO-2770-2002 (O&M)

¶54

- 7 -

¶55

Likewise, claimants No.2 to 3 (son and father of the deceased) 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.11,58,072/- .

¶56

Accordingly, the compensation to be awarded to the claimants is

¶57

assessed as under:-

¶58

S.No.	Under Head
1.	Monthly income of deceased	Rs.5,000/- per month
2.	Age of deceased	22 years
3.	Future prospects @ 40%	Rs.2,000/-
4.	Total income	Rs.7,000/-
5.	Number of dependents	3
6.	Deduction towards personal expenses of the deceased	Rs.2,333/- (1/3rd)
7.	Monthly loss of dependency	Rs.4,667/-
8.	Annual loss of dependency	Rs.56,004/- (Rs.4,667/- × 12)
9.	Multiplier	18
10.	Loss of dependency	Rs.10,08,072/- (Rs.56,004/- × 18)
11.	Compensation under conventional heads to claimant No.1- wife	Rs.70,000/-
12.	Compensation to claimant Nos.2 and 3 (son and father) towards parental and filial consortium	Rs.80,000/- (Rs.40,000 × 2)
13.	Total Compensation	Rs.11,58,072/- (rounded off to Rs.11,58,000/-)
14.	Interest	9%

¶59

Resultantly, the appeal in hand is partly accepted with costs and claimants are held entitled to a sum of Rs.11,58,000/- as compensation. The enhanced compensation thus comes out to Rs.6,46,000/- (Rs.11,58,000/- − Rs.5,12,000/-) over and above the compensation awarded by the Tribunal along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of claim petition i.e. 23.05.2000 till realization payable by respondents No.1 to 3 jointly and

¶60

AMANDEEP GOSAIN 2026.07.07 17:57 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment

¶61

FAO-2770-2002 (O&M)

¶62

- 8 -

¶63

severally. Out of the enhanced compensation, a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- each along with proportionate interest be paid to claimants No.2 and 3 (son and father of the deceased) while balance amount be paid to claimant No.1 (wife) along with proportionate interest.

¶64

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.

¶65

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

¶66

06.07.2026		(YASHVIR SINGH RATHOR) JUDGE
amandeep
	Whether speaking/reasoned.	: Yes/No
	Whether Reportable.	: Yes/No

¶67

AMANDEEP GOSAIN 2026.07.07 17:57 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment

Kuleshta and Ors. v. Jiya Lal and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

Kuleshta and Ors. v. Jiya Lal and 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

Kamlesh Vs Jai Pal and Ors.

Ram Pal @ Pala Ram Vs Jai Pal & Ors.

Sukhwinder Singh Vs Jagir Singh

Harpreet Kaur Vs Ramesh Kumar

Kartar Singh Vs Notified Area Committee Manimajra, Chd

Harpal Singh Vs Krishan Kumar and Ors.