[Cites 6, Cited by 0]
Punjab-Haryana High Court
Ekta Devi And Ors vs Ram Jeevan Yadav And Ors on 10 December, 2025
FAO-3767-2022 Page 1 of 7
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
109
Date of decision: 10.12.2025
FAO-3767-2022(O&M)
Smt. Ekta Devi & Others
...Appellant(s)
Vs.
Ram Jeevan Yadav & Others
...Respondent(s)
***
CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA
Present:- Mr. Ranjit Kumar Jain, Advocate
for the appellants.
***
NIDHI GUPTA, J.
CM-11477-CII-2022
This is an application under Section 151 CPC for condonation of
delay of 37 days in re-filing the appeal.
After going through the contents of the application, which is
supported by affidavit of Clerk of counsel for the appellants, the same is
allowed subject to all just exceptions and delay of 37 days in re-filing the
present appeal is condoned.
CM-11478-CII-2022
Present application under Order 41 Rule 27 for production of
additional evidence has been filed.
By way of this application, the applicants/appellants seek to
bring on record Affidavit (Annexure A1) of one Sh. Surinder Sharma,
1 of 7
deposing that the deceased Rakesh Kumar was employed with the
deponent Surinder Sharma as an Electrician since 2015 to whom he was
paying Rs.20,000/- to Rs.25,000/- per month.
The only reason given by the applicants/appellants in the
present application for not producing the said Affidavit before the learned
Tribunal is "That the appellants were facing acute starvation and were not
in the right state of mind after such a big tragic loss and the appellants were
not able to track down the employer of the deceased Rakesh Kumar due to
non-availability of sources at that time."
The same constitutes no ground for producing additional
evidence at this belated stage before this Court. The above averment does
not satisfy the requirement of the provision, inasmuch as does not
constitute 'due diligence' within the meaning of Rule
27(1)(aa). 'Inadvertence', on part of a party, cannot be construed as
sufficient cause within the provision. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in CA
16899 of 1996 "Karnataka Board of Wakf Vs. Government of India" Law
Finder Doc ID # 71670, has categorically held that parties to an appeal shall
not be entitled to produce additional evidence, unless they have shown
that despite due diligence, they were unable to produce such evidence. In
the present case, petitioner has admittedly, not shown due diligence.
Reference is also be made to judgment
of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in C.A. No.10195 of 2013 titled as "Govt. of
2 of 7
Karnataka and Another Vs. K.C. Subramanya & Others" Law Finder Doc ID
# 495411, wherein Their Lordships have held as follows:-
"6. On perusal of this provision, it is unambiguously clear that the
party can seek liberty to produce additional evidence at the appellate
stage, but the same can be permitted only if the evidence sought to
be produced could not be produced at the stage of trial in spite of
exercise of due diligence and that the evidence could not be produced
as it was not within his knowledge and hence was fit to be
produced by the appellant before the appellate forum.
7. It is thus clear that there are conditions precedent before allowing
a party to adduce additional evidence at the stage of appeal, which
specifically incorporates conditions to the effect that the party in
spite of due diligence could not produce the evidence and the same
cannot be allowed to be done at his leisure or sweet will."
Clearly, the applicants failed to exercise due diligence. Present
application accordingly stands dismissed.
FAO-3767-2022
Present appeal has been filed by claimants seeking
enhancement of compensation of Rs.20,42,200/- awarded by the Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal, Chandigarh (hereinafter 'the learned Tribunal')
vide Award dated 25.01.2022 passed in MACP Case No.15 dated 04.01.2019
filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act (hereinafter "the Act").
The 4 claimants are the widow, one minor son, and parents of deceased
Rakesh Kumar, who was 38 years old at the time of accident.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the ld. Tribunal on the basis of
pleadings and oral & documentary evidence adduced by the parties,
concluded that deceased Rakesh Kumar had died due to the injuries
suffered by him in a motor vehicular accident that took place on 05.12.2018
3 of 7
at about 7:45 pm due to the rash and negligent driving of motorcycle
bearing registration No.PB-65-AT-8418 (hereinafter referred to as "the
offending vehicle") being driven by respondent No.1, owned by respondent
No.2 and insured by respondent No.3. The aforesaid compensation has
been awarded along with interest @ 8% per annum. The respondents were
held jointly and severally liable for payment of compensation amount.
3. Learned counsel for the appellants seeks enhancement of
compensation by submitting that income of the deceased has been taken
on the lower side as only Rs.9,800/- per month as that of an unskilled
person. It is submitted that it was the clear case of the appellants that the
deceased was working at an Electrical Shop in Chandigarh as an Electrician.
It is contended that the appellants have sought to bring on record the
Affidavit (Annexure A1) of the employer of the deceased by way of
additional evidence to prove that deceased was employed as an Electrician.
It is contended that therefore, income of the deceased has been taken on
the lower side. Moreover, interest has also been awarded on the lower side
as only 8%; whereas the same should be 12%. Even under the conventional
heads, less amount has been granted to the appellants. It is accordingly
prayed that the present appeal be allowed, and compensation be enhanced.
4. No other argument is made on behalf of the appellants. I have
heard learned counsel and perused the case file in detail. I find no merit in
the submission advanced on behalf of the appellants.
4 of 7
5. It was the pleaded case of the appellants that deceased was
working as an Electrician in a Shop and earning Rs.25,000/- per month.
However, the appellants failed to produce any evidence before the learned
Tribunal to substantiate the said contention. Thus, learned Tribunal had taken
income of the deceased as Rs.9,774/- per month rounded off to Rs.9,800/-
per month on the basis of Order issued by Assistant Labour Commissioner,
Chandigarh regarding minimum wages admissible to an unskilled person for
the period 01.01.2018 to 31.03.2019. I find no error in the same. The Affidavit
sought to be produced by the appellants by way of additional evidence
before this Court, does not inspire confidence of this Court. A perusal of the
said Affidavit shows that the same is not accompanied by Aadhaar Card of
the deponent to establish his identity. Even otherwise, the deponent has
merely stated that he "is a businessman and running his business of
electronics and electrical appliances.". However, the name and style under
which the business is being run, is not mentioned. Even otherwise, the said
Affidavit is contrary to the testimony of claimant No.1/widow who while
appearing as PW1 had admitted in her cross-examination that she did not
know in which shop her deceased husband was working as Electrician; and
that her husband was not Diploma holder in any Electrician course. Nothing
has been stated as to how the appellant discovered the identity of the alleged
employer. Even otherwise, as noted above, the appellants cannot be
permitted to produce additional evidence at this belated stage as the same
5 of 7
would have been available to the appellants before the Tribunal. Thus, I find
no error in the income of Rs.9,800/- as assessed by the learned Tribunal.
6. Further, age of the deceased was determined to be 38 years 20
days on the basis of Matriculation Certificate of the deceased (Ex.PW1/6)
wherein his date of birth is mentioned as 15.10.1980. Accordingly, Tribunal
had made an addition of 40% towards future prospects; and correctly applied
multiplier of 15. As there were 4 claimants, deduction of 1/4th was made.
Under the conventional heads, the Tribunal has awarded Rs.40,000/- to each
of the four claimants; and has further awarded Rs.15,000/- towards loss of
estate; and Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenses; thereby granting total
compensation of Rs.20,42,200/-, in the following manner:-
Head Amount
Annual income Rs.9,800/- x 12 = Rs.1,17,600/-
Future prospects @ 40% of annual Rs.47,040/-
income
Total notional annual income Rs.1,17,600/- + Rs.47,040/- =
Rs.1,64,640/-
Deduction of 1/4th Rs.41,160/-
Multiplicand Rs.1,64,640/- - Rs.41,160/- =
Rs.1,23,480/-
Compensation for loss of Rs.1,23,480/- x 15 = Rs.18,52,200/-
dependency
Compensation for loss of Rs.1,60,000/-
consortium for each of four
dependents (Rs.40,000/- x 4)
Loss of estate Rs.15,000/-
Funeral expenses Rs.15,000/-
Total Rs.20,42,200/-
6 of 7
7. From the above facts, it is clear that a very just and fair
compensation has been awarded to the appellants. Nothing whatsoever
has been shown to this Court that would merit enhancement of the
compensation granted to the appellants. No doubt Chapter-12 of the Act is
a beneficial legislation yet, as cautioned by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the
same cannot be allowed to be treated as a windfall or a source of profit.
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.
8. In view of the above, present appeal is dismissed.
9. Pending application(s) if any also stand(s) disposed of.
10.12.2025 (Nidhi Gupta)
Sunena Judge
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
Whether reportable: Yes/No
7 of 7
