Claimants sought enhancement of motor accident compensation awarded by MACT Ferozepur for the death of their 24-year-old son, challenging income assessment, contributory negligence deduction and consortium amounts. The High Court found no error in the Tribunal's award and dismissed the appeal.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
FAO-996-2024 Page 1 of 7
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
127
Date of decision: 14.01.2026
FAO-996-2024(O&M)
Babbu @ Varas Masih & Another
...Appellant(s)
Vs.
Jaspreet Singh & Others
...Respondent(s)
CORAM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA
Present:Mr. Daman Jeet Bhoriwal, Advocate for the appellants.
NIDHI GUPTA, J. CM-3955-CII-2024
This is an application under Section 5 of Limitation Act for condonation of delay of 77 days in filing the appeal.
After going through the contents of the application, which is supported by affidavit of appellant No.1, the same is allowed subject to all just exceptions and delay of 77 days in filing the present appeal is condoned.
MAIN CASE
Present appeal has been filed by claimants seeking enhancement of compensation of Rs.10,29,560/- awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ferozepur (hereinafter ‘the learned Tribunal’) vide Award dated 06.09.2023 passed in MACP Case No.67 dated 31.08.2022
SUNENA 2026.01.16 11:33 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
FAO-996-2024 Page 2 of 7
filed under Sections 166 and 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act (hereinafter
“the Act”). The 2 claimants are the 52-year-old father and 46-year-old mother of deceased Sajan, who was 24 years old at the time of accident.
SUNENA 2026.01.16 11:33 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
FAO-996-2024 Page 3 of 7
Tribunal was also in gross error in making a deduction of 30% towards
contributory negligence merely on the ground that the deceased was not wearing a helmet at the time of accident. It is submitted that the above-said findings of the learned Tribunal are totally incorrect and against the settled position of law. It is further submitted that the learned Tribunal has failed to grant any compensation under the head of loss of consortium in favour of each of the appellants. It is further submitted that inadequate compensation has been granted under the other heads; and 50% ought to have been added towards future prospects. It is accordingly prayed that the present appeal be allowed, and the impugned Award be modified.
“2. Briefly stated, Sajan aged about 24 years working as Welder earning ₹.30,000/-per month was bachelor and was looking after claimants, who are parents of Sajan. On 11.02.2022 Sajan alongwith Major Singh had gone to Kotkapura on motorcycle bearing no.PB- 02DS-1582, driven by Major Singh. Sajan was pillion rider. At about 7.30 PM when they reached near village Behak Pachharrian, Balero bearing registration no.PB-65-AW-2252, driven by respondent no.1 in rash and negligent manner struck in the motorcycle from
SUNENA 2026.01.16 11:33 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
FAO-996-2024 Page 4 of 7
behind. They received multiple grievous injuries. They were brought to civil hospital, Zira. Sajan was referred to GGS Medical College, Faridkot, where he died. FIR no.14 of 15.02.2022, under section 304A,279,427 IPC was registered on the statement of Vishal against respondent no.1 at police station, Sadar Zira. Respondent no.1 is driver of the offending vehicle, owned by respondent no.2 Singla Spirit, as such, both respondents are liable to pay compensation to the claimants to the tune of ₹.1.5 crores @ 12% interest per annum. Hence, this petition.”
SUNENA 2026.01.16 11:33 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
FAO-996-2024 Page 5 of 7
Age of the deceased was determined to be 24 years at the time of accident, on the basis of his Post-Mortem Report (Ex.C4). Learned Tribunal had therefore correctly made addition of 40% towards future prospects; and correctly applied multiplier of 18. As deceased was a Bachelor at the time of accident, deduction of 50% was correctly made towards personal expenses. Under the conventional heads, learned Tribunal had further awarded Rs.16,500/- towards loss of estate; Rs.16,500/- towards funeral expenses; and Rs.44,000/- as consortium. As per latest judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Hasina Yasmin v. National Insurance Co. Ltd., (SC) ; law Finder Doc ID # 2826989; while referring the matter to Larger Bench, it has been directed that in the interregnum only a sum of Rs.40,000/- is to be awarded as consortium and Rs.15,000/- each towards funeral expenses and loss of estate - without 10% increase.
SUNENA 2026.01.16 11:33 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
FAO-996-2024 Page 6 of 7
Divisional Controller Versus Alikutty and Others” Law Finder Doc Id #
1885188 . Relevant para 18 of the said judgment is reproduced below:-
“18. It is to be borne in mind, the accident occurred on 23,2,2019. It is more than 2 ½ years since the respondents 1 to 4 have been knocking at the doors of the Courts seeking compensation on account of the death of the bread-winner. It is trite law that the Tribunal is permitted to do some guess work and also exercise its discretion to fix the reasonable and just compensation, for which there cannot be any straightjacket formula based on mathematical precision. In New India Assurance Company Vs. Vinish Jain and Others [(2018) 3 SCC 619], the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that if the fixation of compensation is within permissible limits, the courts should normally not interfere with such awards”.
in “ Reliance General Insurance Company Limited Vs. Adila and Others”,
Law Finder Doc ID # 1921609, paras 16 and 17 of which read as under:-
� 16. The other area of dispute is that the Tribunal after awarding compensation under the conventional heads has awarded Rs.75,000/- towards loss of love and affection and Rs.10,000/awarded towards pain and sufferings.
17. In New India Assurance Co., Ltd v. Vineesh.J[2018 (3) SCC 619], the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the Appellate Court can permit variation of plus or minus 4 to 5 percent.”
SUNENA 2026.01.16 11:33 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
FAO-996-2024 Page 7 of 7
Hon’ble Supreme Court in ‘ State of Haryana & 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.
14.01.2026 (Nidhi Gupta) Sunena Judge
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether reportable: Yes/No
SUNENA 2026.01.16 11:33 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
3 issues framed by the court
Was the compensation awarded by the Tribunal for the death of the claimants' son adequate, or did it merit enhancement?
Was the 30% deduction for contributory negligence for not wearing a helmet justified?
Was the notional income of the deceased correctly assessed at Rs.9,000/- per month?
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Hasina Yasmin v. National Insurance Co. Ltd.Relied on¶8
Hasina Yasmin v. National Insurance Co. Ltd., (SC) ; law Finder Doc ID # 2826989
New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Vinish Jain & OthersRelied on¶9
(SC) SLP No.13931 of 2017 titled as "New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Vinish Jain & Others" Law Finder Doc ID # 977386
The Managing Director, Divisional Controller Versus Alikutty and OthersRelied on¶10
"The Managing Director, Divisional Controller Versus Alikutty and Others" Law Finder Doc Id # 1885188
Reliance General Insurance Company Limited Vs. Adila and OthersRelied on¶11
"Reliance General Insurance Company Limited Vs. Adila and Others", Law Finder Doc ID # 1921609
State of Haryana & Another Vs. Jasbir Kaur & OthersRelied on¶12
'State of Haryana & Another Vs. Jasbir Kaur & Others' Law Finder Doc ID # 64043
Divisional Controller K.S.R.T.C. Vs. Mahadeva ShettyRelied on¶12
'Divisional Controller K.S.R.T.C. Vs. Mahadeva Shetty', (2003) 7 SCC 197 · Who else cites this
General Manager, KSRTC Vs. Susamma Thomas & OthersRelied on¶12
"General Manager, KSRTC Vs. Susamma Thomas & Others" 1994 Volume-II SCC 176 · Who else cites this
3 provisions across 3 enactments
Babbu @ Varas Masih
Jaspreet Singh
Nidhi Gupta
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
