Dismissed

Sintu Devi and Others v. Amar Chand and Others

Punjab & Haryana HC15 Jan 2026FAO/3211/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Appellants challenged a compensation award of Rs.11,02,608/- regarding a motor vehicular accident death, seeking enhancement to Rs.50 lacs on grounds of under-assessed income, incorrect personal expense deduction, and interest rate. The court found no merit.

What the court decided

AI extract

Sintu Devi and Others Vs Amar Chand and Others — Motor Accident Claims | Punjab & Haryana HC (2026)

¶1

FAO-3211-2022 (O&M) -1 -

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶3

121 FAO-3211-2022 (O&M) Date of decision: 15.01.2026

¶4

Sintu Devi and others

¶5

...Appellant(s)

¶6

Vs.

¶7

Amar Chand and others

¶8

...Respondent(s)

¶9

CORAM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA

¶10

Present:Mr. Govind Rana, Advocate for the appellants. ***

¶11

NIDHI GUPTA, J.

¶12

The present appeal has been �led by the claimants seeking enhancement of compensa"on of Rs.11,02,608/- awarded by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Gurugram (hereina-er “the learned Tribunal”) vide Award dated 08.10.2021 passed in MACT Case No. 09 dated 10.07.2017 �led under Sec"on 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, (hereina-er “the Act”). The 5 claimants are the 30-year-old widow; 10-year-old son; 8- year-old son; 4-year-old daughter; and mother of the deceased Pintu Lal, who was more than 30 years old at "me of accident.

¶13

Brief facts of the case are that the ld. Tribunal on the basis of pleadings and evidence adduced before it, concluded that the deceasedPintu Lal had died due to the injuries su=ered by him in a motor vehicular accident that took place on 28.11.2016 at about 5:45 p.m. due to the rash and negligent driving of a Motorcycle bearing registra"on No. HR-36-M3935 (hereina-er “the o=ending vehicle”) being driven by respondent

¶14

DIVYANSHI 2026.01.16 16:39 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶15

FAO-3211-2022 (O&M) -2 -

¶16

No.1; owned by respondent No.2; and insured by respondent No.3. The Tribunal awarded above said compensa"on along with interest @ 9% per annum. Respondents No.1 and 2 were held jointly and severally liable to pay the amount of compensa"on and respondent No.3-Insurance Company shall was directed to indemnify the insured.

¶17

Learned counsel for the appellants seeks enhancement of compensa"on by submiBng that income of the deceased has been taken on the lower side as only Rs.5,122/- p.m. on the basis of minimum wages admissible in Bihar for an unskilled labour. Learned counsel submits that the deceased as well as the claimants were residents of State of Haryana for the last so many years and, therefore, the minimum wages in State of Haryana should have been applied. In actual fact, deceased was employed in a private company and, therefore, minimum wages for skilled labourer in the State of Haryana should have been applicable. Thus, the income as assessed deserves to be enhanced. It is further submiCed that as there were 5 claimants, learned Tribunal ought to have deducted 1/5th towards personal expenses however, learned Tribunal had made deduc"on of 1/4th towards personal expenses of the deceased. Furthermore, mul"plier of 17 should have been applied. Even other amounts awarded under the conven"onal heads were also on the lower side. Nothing has been awarded for love and a=ec"on. Learned Tribunal has awarded interest @ 9% p.a., whereas the same should have been 18% p.a. It is accordingly prayed that present appeal be allowed; and compensa"on of Rs.50 lacs alongwith interest @ 18% p.a. be granted to the appellants.

¶18

DIVYANSHI 2026.01.16 16:39 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶19

FAO-3211-2022 (O&M) -3 -

¶20

No other argument is raised on behalf of learned counsel for the appellants. I have heard ld. counsel and perused the case �le in detail. I �nd no merit in the submissions advanced on behalf of the appellants.

¶21

It has been contended that deceased and the claimants had been residing in Haryana for the last so many years. However, in the Memo of Par"es before the learned Tribunal, as also before this Court, the appellants have shown themselves to be the residents of ‘ village Nimthu, post o�ce Nalanda, District Rajgir, Bhiar-803116.’ As such, I �nd no error in the no"onal income of Rs.5,122/- p.m. as assessed by Tribunal on the basis of minimum wages prevalent in the State of Bihar at the relevant "me. Accordingly, Tribunal had calculated annual income to be Rs.61,464/-.

¶22

As the age of the deceased was proved to be more than 30 years on the basis of his Iden"ty Card issued by Elec"on Commission of India Ex.P19; wherein his date of birth is recorded as 30.01.1986; learned Tribunal had correctly made addi"on of 40% towards future prospects; thereby calcula"ng compensa"on to be Rs.86,050/- p.a. (Rs.61,464 + Rs.24,586). As there were 5 claimants, learned Tribunal had correctly made deduc"on of 1/4th towards personal expenses; thereby calcula"ng dependency to be Rs.64,538/- p.a. (Rs.86,050- Rs.21,512). The Hon’ble Supreme Court in “Na�onal Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi and others”, Special Leave Pe��on (Civil) No. 25590 of 2014 has held that where claimants are 4 to 6 in number, deduc"on of 1/4th is to be made; and where the claimants are more than 6, deduc"on of 1/5th is liable to

¶23

DIVYANSHI 2026.01.16 16:39 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶24

FAO-3211-2022 (O&M) -4 -

¶25

be made. Keeping in view the age of the deceased, the Tribunal had correctly applied mul"plier of 16; thereby calcula"ng loss of dependency to be Rs.10,32,608/- (Rs.64,538x 16). Under the conven"onal heads, learned Tribunal had further awarded Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenses; Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate; and Rs.40,000/- towards loss of consor"um; thereby calcula"ng total compensa"on to be Rs.11,02,608/- (Rs.10,32,608+Rs.15,000+ Rs.15,000+ Rs.40,000)

¶26

The Apex Court in the case of Reshma Kumari supra has

¶27

further gone on to hold that: “ Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, Sec'on 168 - Sec'on 168 provides that amount of compensa'on awarded by the Claims Tribunal which appears to it to be just - The expression, 'just' means that the amount so determined is fair, reasonable and equitable by accepted legal standards and not a forensic lo1ery - Obviously 'just compensa'on' does not mean 'perfect' or 'absolute' compensa'on - The just compensa'on principle requires examina'on of the par'cular situa'on obtaining uniquely in an individual case.”

¶28