Chander Kanta etc. Vs Gurdat Singh and Ors.

This appeal has been instituted by claimants against the Award dated 12.2.2003 passed in MACT case No.38 of 2001 by MACT, Fatehabad ( for short “Tribunal” ) in a petition under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 vide which a sum of Rs.7,50,000/- 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 Raj Kumar in a motor vehicle accident.

¶16

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

¶17

“1. Whether the accident has occurred due to rash and negligent driving of Maruti Zen car bearing No.HR-24E/6888 by respondent No.1? OPP

¶18

2. Whether Raj Kumar has died in the present accident if so what amount of compensation the petitioners are entitled to recover? OPP

¶19

3. Who is liable for payment of amount of compensation?OPP

¶20

AMANDEEP GOSAIN 2026.07.17 18:16 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment

¶21

FAO-5430-2003 (O&M)

¶22

- 2 -

¶23

4. Whether the respondent No.1 was not holding a valid and effective driving licence, if so its effect? OPR3

¶24

5. 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.7,50,000/- as compensation to the claimants alongwith interest @ 9% 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 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.

¶29

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 truck bearing No.HR-24E/6888, owned by respondent No.2 and insured with respondent No.3. 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.

¶30

Learned counsel for the appellants argued that the impugned award

¶31

AMANDEEP GOSAIN 2026.07.17 18:16 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment

¶32

FAO-5430-2003 (O&M)

¶33

- 3 -

¶34

vide which compensation of Rs.7,50,000/- 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 for the appellants argued that the deceased was working as Senior Telephone Operator with BSNL at Sirsa and his monthly salary was Rs.9,549/- but the Tribunal has awarded compensation by taking into consideration his carry home salary to be Rs.7,200/- per month. Learned counsel contended that the Tribunal committed a grave error by not taking into consideration the entire monthly salary and the contributions towards GPF etc. could not have been deducted while assessing his monthly income. Learned counsel contends that future prospects have not been added to the monthly income of the deceased contrary to settled provisions of law. Learned counsel next argued that Tribunal has applied multiplier of 12 to the loss of dependency, whereas multiplier of 15 should have been applied as deceased was 36 years of age. No compensation has been awarded towards loss of consortium, loss of estate and funeral expenses and he prayed that compensation 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.

¶35

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

¶36

AMANDEEP GOSAIN 2026.07.17 18:16 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment

¶37

FAO-5430-2003 (O&M)

¶38

- 4 -

¶39

interference in the same is thus called for.

¶40

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 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

The present claim petition was filed by wife, minor daughter, and parents of the deceased, Raj Kumar, seeking compensation on account of his death in the aforesaid motor vehicle accident. As per version of claimant No.1, Chander Kanta, while appearing as PW1, deceased was working as a Senior Telephone Operator with BSNL and posted at Sirsa and his monthly salary was Rs.9548/-. To prove this fact, claimants have also examined PW4-J.D Grover, officer from

¶42

AMANDEEP GOSAIN 2026.07.17 18:16 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment

¶43

FAO-5430-2003 (O&M)

¶44

- 5 -

¶45

BSNL who produced his service record and deposed that the gross salary of deceased was Rs.9548/- per month and he tendered the salary record Ex. P29 to Ex. P31 besides his service book Ex. P11. No evidence to prove to the contrary was led by the respondents and there is thus no reason to disbelieve the evidence led by the claimants. Accordingly, it is held that the salary of the deceased was Rs.9548/- per month. However, the Tribunal took into consideration his carry home salary to be Rs.7,200/- per month and assessed the compensation by taking into consideration the carry home but the Tribunal committed a grave error by not taking into consideration the entire monthly emoluments. The entire salary being paid by BSNL should have been taken into consideration while assessing the monthly income and accordingly, it is held that the salary of deceased was Rs.9548.50/- (rounded to Rs.9550/-) per month .

¶46

Deceased was 36 years of age as per his service book produced on file and as also held by the Tribunal. Deceased was in permanent Government employment and as such, 50% amount has to be added to his monthly income towards future prospects in view of law laid down in Pranay Sethi’s case (supra), which takes his income to Rs.14,325/- (Rs.9,550/- + Rs.4,775/-) , out of which a sum of Rs.750 has to be deducted towards income tax and after deducting the same, the monthly income comes out to Rs.13,575/- .

¶47

Deceased has left behind four dependents i.e. wife, one minor daughter and parents and as such, 1/4th of the income has to be deducted towards personal and living expenses as per law laid down in Sarla Verma’s case (supra) and after deducting the same, the monthly loss of dependency comes out to Rs.10,181/- (Rs.13,575/- − Rs.3,394/-) and the annual loss of dependency

¶48

AMANDEEP GOSAIN 2026.07.17 18:16 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment

¶49

FAO-5430-2003 (O&M)

¶50

- 6 -

¶51

comes out to Rs.1,22,172/- (Rs.10,181/- × 12).

¶52

Since deceased was 36 years of age, multiplier of 15 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.18,32,580/-.

¶53

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, claimants No.2 to 4 (minor daughter and parents of the 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.20,22,580/- .

¶54

In addition to this, Tribunal has also awarded a sum of Rs.50,000/for the expenses incurred on treatment and Rs.3,800/- for transportation of dead body on the basis of evidence led on file and no enhancement in the same is thus called for.

¶55

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

¶56

S.No.	Under Head
1.	Age of deceased	36 years
2.	Monthly income of deceased	Rs.9,550/- per month
3.	Future prospects @ 50%	Rs.4,775/-
4.	Total income	Rs.14,325/-
5.	Income tax	Rs.750/-
6.	Net monthly income	Rs.13,575/-
7.	Number of dependents	4
8.	Deduction towards personal and living	Rs.3,394/-

¶57

AMANDEEP GOSAIN 2026.07.17 18:16 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment

¶58

FAO-5430-2003 (O&M)

¶59

- 7 -

¶60

	expenses of the deceased (1/4th)
9.	Monthly loss of dependency	Rs.10,181/-
10.	Annual loss of dependency	Rs.1,22,172/- (Rs.10,181/- × 12)
11.	Multiplier	15
12.	Loss of dependency	Rs.18,32,580/- (Rs.1,22,172/- × 15)
13.	Compensation under conventional heads to claimant No.1 (wife)	Rs.70,000/-
14.	Compensation to claimants No.2 to 4 (minor daughter and parents) towards loss of parental and filial consortium	Rs.1,20,000/- (Rs.40,000/- × 3)
15.	Expenses incurred on treatment and transportation of dead body	Rs.53,800/- (Rs.50,000/- + Rs.3,800/-)
16.	Total Compensation	Rs.20,76,380/- (rounded off to Rs.20,76,000/-)
17.	Interest	9%

¶61

Resultantly, the appeal in hand is partly accepted with costs and claimants are held entitled to a sum of Rs.20,76,000/- as compensation. The enhanced compensation thus comes out to Rs.13,26,000/- ( Rs.20,76,000/- – Rs.7,50,000/- ) 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. 22.10.2001 till realization payable by respondents No.1 to 3 jointly and severally. Out of the enhanced compensation, a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- each along with proportionate interest be paid to claimants No.2 to 4 (minor daughters and parents of the deceased) while balance amount be paid to claimant No.1 (wife) along with proportionate interest.

¶62

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

¶63

AMANDEEP GOSAIN 2026.07.17 18:16 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment

¶64

FAO-5430-2003 (O&M)

¶65

- 8 -

¶66

16.03.2021 and Insurance Company shall comply with the directions as issued under Clause (F) of the said judgment.

¶67

19. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand

¶68

disposed of.