[Cites 3, Cited by 0]
Punjab-Haryana High Court
Satyavir And Others vs Om Parkash And Others on 15 December, 2025
FAO-761-2024 (O&M) -1 -
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
116-2 FAO-761-2024 (O&M)
Date of decision: 15.12.2025
Satyavir and others
...Appellant(s)
Vs.
Om Parkash and others
...Respondent(s)
CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA
Present:- Mr. Vijay Sangwan, Advocate
for the appellants.
***
NIDHI GUPTA, J.
CM-2720-CII-2024
Prayer in this application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation
Act is for condonation of delay of 271 days in filing the appeal.
2. The only reason cited by learned counsel for the
applicant/appellant in the abovesaid application for condonation of 271
days delay in filing the appeal is as under: -
"3. That the appellants was not aware about the period
of limitation to file the appeal and came to know about
the same in the last week of January 2024 and then
applicant-Appellants approached the undersigned
counsel and in the mean time appeal becomes barred by
limitation of 271 days and the undersigned counsel
without any further delay filed the appeal in this Hon'ble
Court for enhancement of the compensation."
FAO-761-2024 (O&M) -2 -
3. The above cited reason is vague and does not constitute
sufficient cause to condone extraordinary delay of 271 days in filing the
present appeal. It is cardinal principle of law that delay of each day has to
be explained. In this regard, reliance may also be placed upon recent
judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 11794 of 2025
titled as Shivamma (Dead) by LRs Vs. Karnataka Housing Board and
others, 2025 INSC 1104 decided on 12.09.2025.
4. As such, no ground is made out for condoning inordinate delay
of 271 days. Present application accordingly stands dismissed.
FAO-761-2024 (O&M)
The present appeal has been filed by the claimants seeking
enhancement of compensation of Rs.13,31,260/- awarded by the Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal, Narnaul (hereinafter "the learned Tribunal") vide
Award dated 08.02.2023 passed in MACP Case No. 312 dated 31.08.2021
filed under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, (hereinafter "the Act"). The
3 claimants are the 46-year-old husband; 17-year-old daughter; and 15-
year-old daughter of deceased Bimla Devi, who was 49 years old at time of
accident.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the ld. Tribunal on the basis of
pleadings and evidence adduced before it concluded that the deceased-
Bimla Devi had died due to the injuries suffered by her in a motor
vehicular accident that took place on 13.08.2021 due to the rash and
negligent driving of Truck/Trailer bearing registration No. RJ-42GA-3765
(hereinafter "the offending vehicle") being driven by respondent No.1;
FAO-761-2024 (O&M) -3 -
owned by respondent No.2; and insured by respondent No.3. The Tribunal
awarded abovesaid compensation along with interest @ 7.5% per annum.
All respondents were held liable to pay the compensation jointly and
severally.
3. The only ground on which learned counsel for the appellants
seeks enhancement of compensation is that income of the deceased has
been taken on the lower side. It is accordingly prayed that present Appeal
be allowed; and the compensation be modified.
4. No other argument is raised on behalf of the appellants. I
have heard ld. Counsel and perused the case file in detail. I find no merit
whatsoever in the submissions made on behalf of the appellants.
5. Perusal of the record of the case shows that it was the
pleaded case of the appellants before the learned Tribunal that prior to
the accident, deceased was 40 years old and doing a private job in
Bakhtawar Oil Mill, Jamalpur and was getting salary of Rs.17,000/- p.m.
However, a perusal of the record shows that except for the self-serving
statement of claimant No.1/husband of the deceased as PW1, no
evidence whatsoever was produced by the appellants to prove the said
alleged employment or income of the deceased. Even no Bank Passbook
or statement of account of the deceased, et cetera was produced to show
that any such salary was being received by the deceased. Accordingly,
learned Tribunal had assessed notional income of the deceased as
Rs.9,700/- p.m. as per the prevailing wages for the unskilled workers.
FAO-761-2024 (O&M) -4 -
6. Although in the Claim Petition, deceased was stated to be 40
years old however, as per Aadhar Card Ex.R2, her date of birth is
mentioned as 15.07.1972. As such, on the date of accident i.e.
13.08.2021, deceased was 49 years old. Accordingly, learned Tribunal had
made addition of 25% towards future prospects; thereby calculating
monthly income of the deceased as Rs.12,125/- (Rs.9,700+Rs.2,425). As
there were 3 claimants, learned Tribunal had correctly deducted 1/3rd
towards personal expenses; thereby calculating annual dependency to be
Rs.97,020/- (Rs.12,125-Rs.4,040 X 12). Learned Tribunal had correctly
applied multiplier of 13; thereby calculating compensation to be
Rs.12,61,260/- (Rs.97,020 X 13). Learned Tribunal had further awarded
Rs.40,000/- towards loss of consortium; Rs.15,000/- towards loss of
estate; and Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenses; thereby granting total
compensation of Rs.13,31,260/- (Rs.12,61,260 + Rs.40,000 + Rs.15,000 +
Rs.15,000).
7. Thus, the Tribunal has awarded compensation in accordance
with law. As such, no ground is made out to interfere in the impugned
Award. The present Appeal is accordingly dismissed.
8. Pending application(s) if any also stand(s) disposed of.
15.12.2025 (NIDHI GUPTA)
Divyanshi JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
Whether reportable: Yes/No
