[Cites 10, Cited by 0]
Punjab-Haryana High Court
Surjeeto Kaur And Others vs Jahid And Anothers on 2 December, 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
FAO-2472-2018 (O&M)
Date of Decision: 02.12.2025
Surjeeto Kaur and others ....Appellants
V/s
Jahid and another ....Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKRAM AGGARWAL
Present: Dr. Anand Kumar Bishnoi, Advocate, for the appellants.
Mr. Punit Jain, Advocate, for respondent No.2.
***
VIKRAM AGGARWAL, J. (ORAL)
Claimants have preferred the instant appeal seeking
enhancement in compensation granted to them vide Award dated 07.11.2017
passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Palwal (for short 'the
MACT').
2. The facts, as emanating from the paper book, are that
appellants/claimants, who are the wife and children of the deceased-Gopal
Singh, filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act,
1988 (for short 'the MV Act') claiming compensation on account of death of
Gopal Singh in a motor vehicular accident which took place on 16.07.2016.
3. It was averred that on 16.07.2016, Gopal Singh along with his
brother Avtar Singh was going from Palwal to Hasanpur on his motor-cycle
bearing Regn. No.RJ02-SG-0897 at a moderate speed on the correct side of
the road. At around 3.00 p.m., when they crossed Village Pingod, a truck
bearing Regn. No.UP16-DT-5375 (hereinafter referred to as the "offending
vehicle"), came from the opposite side. It was being driven by respondent
No.1 (Jahid) at a very high speed and in a rash and negligent manner. It
struck the motorcycle of Gopal Singh. As a result of the same, Gopal Singh
1 of 6
FAO-2472-2018 (O&M) -2-
was run over by the offending vehicle and he suffered serious multiple
injuries, including head injury. However, Avtar Singh fell aside and
fortunately escaped unhurt. Gopal Singh (hereinafter to be referred to as the
"deceased") was taken to General Hospital, Palwal, from where, he was
referred to Shaheed Hassan Khan Mewati Govt. Hospital & Medical
College, Nalhar (Mewat), where he was admitted and underwent surgery but
unfortunately expired on account of the injuries suffered by him. The
motorcycle of the deceased was also totally damaged. The matter was
reported to the police and FIR No.468, dated 20.07.2016 was registered at
Police Station Sadar Palwal under Sections 279, 337, 427, 304A IPC.
3.1 It was averred that Naresh Chand was earning Rs.75,000/- per
month. As such, compensation of Rs.2 crores was claimed by the claimants.
It was averred that Gopal Singh was earning Rs.25,000/- per month and was
doing the work of milk vending and farming. As such, compensation of
Rs.70 lakhs was claimed by the claimants. On account of the damages to the
motor-cycle in the said accident, a separate claim petition was also filed by
the claimants claiming compensation of Rs.25000/-. Both claim petitions
were consolidated and common issues were framed.
4. On notice, respondent No.1 (driver-cum-owner of the offending
vehicle) appeared and filed his written statement. He denied all the
averments made in the petition including the factum of the accident.
5. The claim petition was opposed by respondent No.2-insurance
company. In the written statement, it took its usual defences and denied the
factum of the accident.
6. From the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed:
"1. Whether the accident took place due to rash and negligent
driving of vehicle bearing No.UP16-DT-5375 by respondent No.1 and
caused injuries to Gopal since deceased and damage to his Hero Honda
2 of 6
FAO-2472-2018 (O&M) -3-
Spelendor Motor Cycle bearing Regn. No.RJ02-SG-0897, as alleged ?
OPP
2. Whether the claimants are entitled to compensation, if so to what
amount and from whom?OPP
3. Whether the respondent No.1 was not holding a valid and
effective driving licence at the time of accident?OPR
4. Whether the respondent has violated the terms and conditions of
insurance policy?OPR
5. Whether the insurer is liable to indemnify the insured?OPR
6. Whether the petitions are not maintainable in the present
form?OPR
7. Whether the petitioners have no locus standi to file the present
petitions?OPR
8. Whether the petitioners have no cause of action to file the present
petitions?OPR
9. Relief."
7. Parties led their respective evidence.
8. The MACT held that the accident had taken place on account of
the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by respondent No.1.
As regards the quantum of compensation, the age of the deceased was
assessed as 50 years and his monthly income was assessed as Rs.8100/- per
month. All claimants were held to be dependent on the income of the
deceased. In terms of the law laid down in the case of National Insurance
Company vs. Pranay Sethi and others, 2017 (4) RCR (Civil) and Sarla
Verma vs. DTC, 2009 (6) SCC 121 and keeping in view the age of the
deceased, a multiplier of '13' was applied by the MACT. The MACT
assessed and granted the following compensation:-
Sr. No. Heads of Claim
1. Age of the deceased 50 years
2. Income of the deceased Rs.8100/-
3. Future prospects @ 25% Rs.8100+Rs.2025/- =
Rs.10125/- per month
4. After deducting 1/4th of Rs.10125-2531=
the income as personal Rs.7594/- X 12
expenses of the deceased =Rs.91128/- per annum
(Rs.2531/- per month)
3 of 6
FAO-2472-2018 (O&M) -4-
5. After applying Multiplier Rs.91128/- x 13
of '13' =Rs.11,84,664/-
6. Funeral expenses Rs.15,000/-
7. Loss of Estate Rs.15,000/-
8. Spouse consortium Rs.40,000/-
Total Compensation Rs.12,62,436/-
As such, compensation of Rs.12,62,436/- was granted along with
interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till
its actual realization. As it was not proved by the respondent-Insurance
company that respondent No.1 was not holding a valid driving licence, the
liability to pay the compensation was fastened upon all the respondents
jointly and severally. On account of damages to the motorcycle, a sum of
Rs.22559/- was separately awarded to the claimants along with interest @
7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till its actual
realization. Rs.1500/- for each petitions was also awarded as litigation
charges.
9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties.
10. Learned counsel for the appellants submits the MACT erred in
assessing the income of the deceased on the lower side despite the fact that
the deceased was earning Rs.25,000/- per month and was doing the work of
milk vending and farming. He further submits that the compensation should
have been awarded by the MACT keeping in view of the principles laid
down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of National Insurance
Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi and others, (2017)16 SCC 680, Smt.
Sarla Verma and others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another,
(2009) 6 SCC 121 and Magma General Insurance Company Limited vs.
Nanu Ram alias Chuhru Ram, (2018) 18 SCC 130. Learned counsel
submits that compensation under conventional heads was not granted in
terms of the judgment of the Supreme Court of India in National Insurance
4 of 6
FAO-2472-2018 (O&M) -5-
Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and others, 2017 (4) RCR (Civil) 1009.
As regards claim of filial consortium, it has been submitted that the same
would be @ Rs.48,400/- for each dependant (for all the claimants).
11. Per contra, learned counsel for the insurance company submits
that adequate compensation has been granted. However, he could not deny
about the consortium/filial compensation being payable.
12. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for
the parties.
13. There is no challenge to the Award by either side on the issue of
negligence and only enhancement in compensation is claimed. Having
considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, the
compensation is assessed as under, keeping in mind the principles
enunciated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India:-
Sr. Heads of Claim Awarded by the Enhanced
No. MACT Compensation
1. Age of the deceased 50 years 50 years
(No change)
2. Income of the deceased Rs.8100/- Rs.8100/-
(No change)
3. Future prospects @ 25% Rs.8100+ Rs.10,125/-
Rs.2025/- = (No change)
Rs.10125/- per
month
th
4. After deducting 1/4 of Rs.10125-2531= Rs.91,128/- per
the income as personal Rs.7594/- X 12 annum
expenses of the deceased =Rs.91128/- per (No change)
(Rs.2531/- per month) annum
5. After applying Multiplier Rs.91128/- x 13 Rs.11,84,664/-
of '13' (No change)
=Rs.11,84,664/-
6. Funeral expenses Rs.15000/- Rs.18150/-
7. Loss of Estate Rs.15000/- Rs.18150/-
8. Filial consortium for Rs.40000/- Rs.48400/-
spouse
9. Filial consortium for Not granted Rs.1,93,400/-
Children ( Rs.48400/- each
for 4 children)
10. Total Compensation Rs.12,62,436/- Rs.14,62,764/-
5 of 6
FAO-2472-2018 (O&M) -6-
rounded off to
Rs.14,63,000/-
The total compensation, therefore, comes to Rs.14,63,000/-.
After deducting a sum of Rs.12,62,436/- as assessed by the MACT, the
balance compensation comes to Rs.2,00,564/-. This amount would be
payable in addition to the amount assessed by the learned MACT along with
interest @ 7.5% annually. The disbursal and liability to pay the same would
be as per the award.
14. The present appeal is accordingly disposed of.
Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.
(VIKRAM AGGARWAL)
JUDGE
December 02, 2025
vcgarg
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
Whether reportable: Yes/No
6 of 6
