Islam & Ors. Vs Gajender Kumar Mishra & Ors.

The record of the present case was destroyed in a fire incident in the High Court Registry. Learned counsel for the appellants/claimants has placed on record a photocopy of award and grounds of appeal, which are taken on record. Registry is directed to tag the same at an appropriate place on the record.

¶15

This appeal has been instituted against the Award dated 20.04.2005 for enhancement of compensation awarded in MACT No.50 of 2003 decided by the MACT, Panipat ( for short “Tribunal” ) 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/appellants along with interest at the rate of 6% per

¶16

VISHAL VARDHAN 2026.07.07 17:57 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶17

FAO-4220-2005 (O&M) -2-

¶18

annum from the date of filing of claim petition till realization on account of death of their daughter namely Sanjima in a motor vehicular accident.

¶19

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

¶20

“i). Whether the accident in question took place due to the rash and negligent driving of vehicle No.DL-8CA-7925 being driven by respondent No.1 and in the said accident Sanjima sustained injuries and died as alleged? OPP

¶21

ii). If issue No.1 is proved how much amount of compensation the claimants have entitled to claim and from whom? OPP.

¶22

iii). Whether the claim petition is not maintainable? OPR.

¶23

iv). Whether the vehicle in question was being driven in contravention of the terms and conditions of the Insurance Police as alleged? OPR

¶24

v). Relief.”

¶25

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

¶26

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/ appellants, on account of death of Sanjima along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of claim petition till realization.

¶27

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

¶28

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 Branch and the present

¶29

VISHAL VARDHAN 2026.07.07 17:57 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶30

FAO-4220-2005 (O&M) -3-

¶31

appeal has to be decided on the basis of the facts and evidence discussed by the Tribunal in the impugned Award.

¶32

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.1 while driving the offending vehicle bearing No.DL-8CA-7925 , owned by respondent No.2 and insured with respondent No.3 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.

¶33

Learned counsel for the appellants argued that the impugned award vide which lump sum compensation of Rs.70,000/- has been awarded is based on conjectures and surmises and is liable to be set aside and enhanced amount of compensation should be awarded. Learned counsel next contended that deceased was 8 years of age and her income should have been assessed on the basis of minimum wages being paid to skilled worker in the State of Haryana. 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 8 years of age and multiplier of 18 should have been applied. No compensation has been awarded under the conventional heads i.e. loss of consortium, loss of estate and funeral expenses and he prayed that compensation

¶34

VISHAL VARDHAN 2026.07.07 17:57 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶35

FAO-4220-2005 (O&M) -4-

¶36

be suitably enhanced. In support of his contentions, learned counsel has relied upon 2025 ACJ 1624 titled Karuna Parmar Vs. Prakash Sinha and others, 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.

¶37

On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.3 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. 11. 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

¶38

VISHAL VARDHAN 2026.07.07 17:57 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶39

FAO-4220-2005 (O&M) -5-

¶40

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.

¶41

Coming to issue No.2, deceased was 8 years old daughter of the claimants who was studying in school. The Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.70,000/- in all as lump sum compensation which in my opinion is grossly inadequate.

¶42

Hon’ble Supreme Court in Karuna Parmar’s case (supra) while relying upon judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in 2024 SCC Online SC 3692, Baby Sakshi Greola Vs. Manzoor Ahmad Simon, has held that minimum wages payable to a skilled worker in the concerned State have to be taken into consideration while assessing income in the case of death of a child because that would be the minimum amount which a child would have earned on attaining the age of majority. In Karuna Parmar’s case (supra) , a girl aged 6 years had died and taking into consideration the minimum wages for skilled workers in the year 2014 to be Rs.223 per day, annual income was assessed as Rs.80,280/- and thereafter, future prospects were applied and after applying multiplier of 18, the compensation was assessed.

¶43

In the present case, deceased was 8 years of age at the time of accident and she has to be treated as a skilled person. The accident had taken place in the year 2003 and during those days, minimum wages earned by a skilled

¶44

VISHAL VARDHAN 2026.07.07 17:57 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶45

FAO-4220-2005 (O&M) -6-

¶46

person were around Rs.3,500/- per month. Accordingly, income of deceased is taken as Rs.3,500/- per month .

¶47

Since deceased was 8 years of age, 40% amount has to be added to the monthly income of the deceased towards future prospects in view of law laid in Pranay Sethi’s case (supra) , which takes her income to Rs.4,900/- per month (Rs.3,500/- + Rs.1,400/-).

¶48

The claim petition was filed by the parents. It has been held in Sarla Verma’s case (supra) that only mother is dependent upon her daughter and father is not dependent. As such, mother alone is entitled to compensation on account of death of her daughter and father being not dependent is not entitled to compensation except on account of filial consortium.

¶49

Deceased has thus left behind one dependent and as per law laid down in Sarla Verma’s case (supra), 50% of the earnings have to be deducted towards personal and living expenses. After deducting 50% of her income towards personal expenses, the monthly loss of dependency comes out to Rs.2,450/- and the annual loss of dependency comes out to Rs.29,400/- (Rs.2,450/- X 12).

¶50

Since deceased was 8 years of age, multiplier of 18 has to be applied in view of the guidelines laid down in Sarla Verma’s case (supra) and Karuna Parmar’s case (supra) , and after applying the same, the total loss of dependency comes out to Rs.5,29,200/-.

¶51

In addition to this, claimant No.2 (mother 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

¶52

VISHAL VARDHAN 2026.07.07 17:57 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶53

FAO-4220-2005 (O&M) -7-

¶54

account of funeral expenses, as per law laid down in Pranay Sethi’s case (supra). Likewise, claimant No.1 ( father of the deceased) is also held entitled to a sum of Rs.40,000/- on account of loss of filial consortium , in view of law laid down in 2018 (4) R.C.R. (Civil) 333, Nanu Ram’s case (supra) and Satinder Kaur’s case (supra) , which takes the compensation to Rs.6,39,200/- .

¶55

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

¶56

S.No.	Under Head	Compensation awarded by the High Court
1.	Monthly income of deceased	Rs.3,500/- per month
2.	Age of deceased	8 years
3.	Future prospects @40%	Rs.1,400/-
4.	Total income	Rs.4,900/-
5.	Number of dependents	1
6.	Deduction towards personal expenses of the deceased (50%)	Rs.2,450/-
7.	Monthly loss of dependency	Rs.2,450/-
8.	Annual loss of dependency	Rs. 29,400/- (Rs.2,450/- X 12)
9.	Multiplier	18
10.	Compensation on account of Loss of dependency	Rs.5,29,200/- (Rs.29,400 x 18)
11.	Compensation under conventional heads to claimant No.2-mother	Rs.70,000/-
12.	Compensation to claimant No.1 for loss of filial consortium	Rs.40,000/-
	Total Compensation	Rs.6,39,200/-
	Interest	9%

¶57

VISHAL VARDHAN 2026.07.07 17:57 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶58

FAO-4220-2005 (O&M) -8-

¶59

Resultantly, the appeal in hand is partly accepted with costs and appellants/claimants No.1 and 2 are held entitled to a sum of Rs.6,39,200/- as compensation. The enhanced compensation thus comes out to Rs.5,69,200/(Rs.6,39,200/- - Rs.70,000/-) , which is rounded off to Rs.5,69,000/- , over and above the compensation awarded by the Tribunal payable along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of claim petition i.e. 01.05.2003 till realization payable by respondents, jointly and severally.

¶60

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.

¶61

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

¶62

(YASHVIR SINGH RATHOR) JUDGE 07.07.2026 Vishal Vardhan Whether Speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No

¶63

VISHAL VARDHAN 2026.07.07 17:57 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Islam & Ors. v. Gajender Kumar Mishra & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

Islam & Ors. v. Gajender Kumar Mishra & 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

Harpreet Kaur Vs Ramesh Kumar

Kartar Singh Vs Notified Area Committee Manimajra, Chd

Kuleshta and Ors. Vs Jiya Lal and Ors.

Harpal Singh Vs Krishan Kumar and Ors.

Bishnu Mati Vs Joginder and Ors.

(O&M) Anil Kumar Vs K.Ravi & Ors.