Punjab-Haryana High Court
Jagdish And Ors vs Vikas Bhatti And Anr on 25 March, 2025
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:041014
Page 1 of 9
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
267 Date of decision: 25.03.2025
FAO-701-2023(O&M)
Jagdish & Others
...Appellant(s)
Vs.
Vikas Bhatti & Another
...Respondent(s)
***
FAO-1213-2023(O&M)
Jagdish & Others
...Appellant(s)
Vs.
Vikas Bhatti & Another
...Respondent(s)
***
FAO-702-2023(O&M)
Sandeep & Another
...Appellant(s)
Vs.
Vikas Bhatti & Another
...Respondent(s)
CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA
Present:- Mr. K.S. Dhanora,, Advocate
for the appellants.
***
NIDHI GUPTA, J.
CM-2564-CII--2023 IN FAO-701-2023
This is an application u/s 5 of the Limitation Act for
condonation of delay of 103 days in filing the appeal.
After going through the contents of the application,
which is supported by affidavit of the applicant, the same is allowed subject
to all just exceptions and delay of 103 days in filing the present appeal is
condoned.
1 of 9
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:041014
CM-4576-CII--2023 IN FAO-1213-2023
This is an application u
u/s 5 of Limitation Act for
condonation of delay of 103 days in filing the appeal.
After going through the contents of the application,
which is supported by affidavit of the applicant, the same is allowed subject
to all just exceptions
exce and delay of 103 days in filing the present appeal is
condoned.
CM-2565-CII--2023 IN FAO-702-2023
This is an application u/s 5 of Limitation Act for
condonation of delay of 103 days in filing the appeal.
After going through the contents of the ap
application,
plication,
which is supported by affidavit of the applicant, the same is allowed subject
to all just exceptions and delay of 103 days in filing the present appeal is
condoned.
MAIN CASE
FAO-701-2023 has been filed by the claimants seeking
enhancement of compensation of Rs.17,43,600
17,43,600/- awarded by the Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal, Hisar vide Award dated 10.05.2022 passed in
MACP/513/2019
P/513/2019 titled as "Jagdish
Jagdish & Others Vs. Vikas Bhatti & Another
Another",
",
filed by the appellants/claimants
appellant /claimants under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles
Act seeking compensation on account of death of Jagat Ram. The 3
claimants are the 62-year-old father; 60-year
year-old mother and a 2-and-a--
half-year-old
old daughter of the deceased Jagat Ram. The above said
2 of 9
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:041014
compensation was granted along with interest
interest @ 9%
% per annum from the
date of filing of claim petition till its realisation.
FAO-1213-2023has
has also been filed by the claimants
seeking enhancement of compensation of Rs.18,44,400/- awarded by the
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Hisar vide Award dated 10.05.2022 passed
in MACP/512/2019 titled as "Jagdish & Others Vs. Vikas Bhatti & Another",
filed by the appellants/claimants under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles
Act seeking compensation on account of death of Sarita w/o Jagat Ram. The
3 claimantss are the 62-year-old
62 father-in-law
law; 60-year-old mother-in-law,,
and 2-and-a--half year-old
old daughter of the deceased Sarita.. The above said
compensation was granted along with interest @ 9% per annum from the
date of filing of claim petition till its realisation.
FAO-702-2023 has also been filed by the claimants
seeking enhancement of compensation of Rs.
Rs.5,10,000/- awarded by the
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Hisar vide Award dated 10.05.2022 passed
in MACP/539
539/2019 titled as "Sandeep
Sandeep & Another Vs. Vikas
kas Bhatti &
Another", filed by the appellants/claimants under Section 166 of the Motor
Vehicles Act seeking compensation on account of death of SSeema @ Sneha..
The 2 claimants are the parents of the deceased Seema @ Sneha.. The
above said compensation was granted
granted along with interest @ 9% per annum
from the date of filing of claim petition till its realisation.
All the above appeals are being disposed of by this
common order as they arise out of the same common Award dated
3 of 9
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:041014
10.05.2022 passed by the Motor Accidents, Claims Tribunal, Hisar;; and out
of the same accident dated 21.06.2019;; and because the parties, facts, and
issues in all the 3 appeals are identical. For the sake of convenience, the
facts are being drawn from, and the parties
es are being referred to as per
their status in FAO-701-2023.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the learned Tribunal on
the basis of pleadings and oral & documentary evidence adduced before it
concluded that the deceased Sarita, Jagat Ram and Seema @ Sneha had
died due to the injuries suffered by them in a motor vehicular accident that
took place on 21.06.2019due
due to the rash and negligent driving of Swift Dzire
car bearing registration No.HR-12Z-8225(hereinafter
No. (hereinafter referred to as "the
offending
ing vehicle")being
vehicle") driven by respondent No.1
No.1.The
.The offending vehicle
was owned by respondent No.1 and insured by respondent No.
No.2.
3. The common facts as enumerated by the claimants in
their respective claim petitions are thaton
thaton 21.06.2019 Jagat Ram along with
his wife Sarita and minor son Roshan and her niece Seema had gone to
Uttrada to attend a marriage function and after attending the said function
they were returning to village Dhani Mohabbatpur, District Hisar on motor
cycle bearing
ng registration No. HR20AK-8850
8850 which was being driven by
Jagat Ram at a moderate speed. At about 77-30
30 p.m. when they reached
near Gaushala in the area of village Sherpura, a Maruti Swift Dzire Car
bearing registration No. HR12Z-8225/the
HR12Z /the offending vehicle, came from
village Chhani
hani side, which was being driven by respondent No.1 at a very
4 of 9
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:041014
fast speed, in a rash and negligent manner and while coming on the wrong
side of the road, hit his car into the motor cycle of Jaga
Jagatt Ram, as a result of
which, all the occupants of motor cycle fell down, sustained multiple
grievous injuries and succumbed to the injuries sustained by them in the
accident. It has been further averred that the accident took place due to
sole rash and negligent driving of Maruti Swift Dzire Car bearing
registration No. HR12Z-8225 by the respondent No.1. The accident was
witnessed by Krishan, Rajender, Ram Jas Solanki and Jan Mohammad and
on the statement of eye-witness
eye Krishan son of Munshi a FIR No.186 dated
21.06.2019 under sections 279, 337 and 304
304-A IPC was registered
stered at Police
Station Bhadra.
4. Learned counsel for the appellants seeks enhancement
of compensation on the ground that income of the deceased Jagat Ram has
been taken on the lower side; learned Tribunal has applied very less
multiplier; less future prospects have been awarded; and less amount has
been awarded under the conventional heads.
5. No other argument is made on behalf of the appellants.
6. I have heard learned counsel for the appellants and
perused the case file in great detail.
7. Record
ecord reveals that in respect of deceased Jagat Ram (in
FAO-701-2023),
2023), it was the pleaded by the claimants before the learned
Tribunal that Jagat Ram was driver by profession and earning Rs.15,000/
Rs.15,000/--
per month. However, as no evidence was led by the claiman
claimants
ts in respect of
5 of 9
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:041014
the income or occupation, of deceased Jagat Ram, his income was taken to
be Rs.9,000/- per month as that of a daily wager. As the claimants were 3 in
number being parents and minor daughter of deceased Jagat Ram,
deduction of 1/3rd was made. Deceased
eceased Jagat Ram was proven to be 28
years old at the time of death on the basis of his Post
Post-Mortem
Mortem Report
(Ex.P9), as such, future prospects were correctly added @ 40%. Multiplier
of 17 was applied in conformity with the law as laid down by tthe
he Hon'ble
Sarla Verma Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation" (2009)
Supreme Court in "Sarla
AIR (SC) 3104 Law Finder Doc ID # 188882. Learned Tribunal further
awarded Rs.15,000/-
Rs.15,000/ for loss of estate/love & affection and Rs.15,000/
Rs.15,000/- for
funeral expenses. Thus, granting total compensation of Rs.17,43,600/
Rs.17,43,600/- on
account of death of Jagat Ram in following manner:
manner:-
Sr. No. Heads of claim
1 Income Rs.9,000/
Rs.9,000/- x 12 = Rs.1,08,000/--
per annum
2 40% future prospects Rs.43,200/
Rs.43,200/-
rd
3 1/3 deducted as personal Rs.1,08,000/
Rs.1,08,000/- + Rs.43,200/- =
expenses of the deceased Rs.1,51,200/
Rs.1,51,200/- after deduction
1/3rd comes to Rs.1,00,800/-
4 Compensation after applying Rs.1,00,800/
Rs.1,00,800/- x 17 =
multiplier of 17
1 Rs.17,13,600/
Rs.17,13,600/-
5 Loss of love & affection Rs.15,000/
Rs.15,000/-
6 Transportation and funeral Rs.15,000/
Rs.15,000/-
expenses
7 Total compensation Rs.17,43,600/
Rs.17,43,600/-
8. FAO-1213-2023 has been filed on account of death of
Sarita wife of Jagat Ram. The learned Tribunal found that age of the
deceased Sarita was about 24 years on the basis of her Post
Post-Mortem
Mortem Report
(Ex.P8).. As per the pleaded case of the claimants (parents
(parents-in-law
law and minor
6 of 9
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:041014
daughter of deceased Sarita), the deceased Sarita was doing work of
tailoring and embroidery and earning Rs.15,000/
Rs 15,000/- per month. However,
owever, the
claimants failed to lead any evidence in this regard
regard. Thus, the learned
Tribunal had taken notional income of the deceased as Rs.9,000/
Rs.9,000/- per
month towards services rendered by deceased Sarita to her family. As
deduction of 1/3rd was made. Addition of 40%
Claimants were 3 in number, deduction
was made towards future prospects. As deceased was 24 years old at the
time of death, learned Tribunal further applied multiplier of 18 in
conformity with the law as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
"Sarla Verma
rma Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation" (2009) AIR (SC) 3104 Law
Finder Doc ID # 188882. Learned Tribunal further granted Rs.15,000/
Rs.15,000/--
towards loss of love & affection and Rs.15,000/
Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenses.
Thus, granting total compensation of Rs.18,44,400/
Rs.18,44,400/- in following manner:-
Sr. No. Heads of claim
1 Income Rs.9,000/
Rs.9,000/- x 12 = Rs.1,08,000/--
per annum
2 40% future prospects Rs.43,200/
Rs.43,200/-
rd
3 1/3 deducted as personal Rs.1,08,000/
Rs.1,08,000/- + Rs.43,200/- =
expenses of the deceased Rs.1,51,200/
Rs.1,51,200/- after deduction
1/3rd comes to Rs.1,00,800/-
4 Compensation after applying Rs.1,00,800/
Rs.1,00,800/- x 18 =
multiplier of 18 Rs.18,14,400/
Rs.18,14,400/-
5 Loss of love & affection Rs.15,000/
Rs.15,000/-
6 Transportation and funeral Rs.15,000/
Rs.15,000/-
expenses
7 Total compensation Rs.18,44,400/
Rs.18,44,400/-
9. FAO-702-2023
2023 has been filed on account of death of
Seema @ Sneha. The learned Tribunal found that age of the deceased
Seema @ Sneha was about 5 years on the basis of her Post
Post-Mortem
Mortem Report
7 of 9
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:041014
(Ex.P6). Notional income of the deceased was taken to be Rs.30,000/
Rs.30,000/- per
annum by relying upon judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in "Krishan
Gopal Vs. Lala & Others" 2013 (4) RCR (Civil) 276
276.The
The learned Tribunal
further applied multiplier of 16. Learned Tribunal also granted Rs.30,000/
Rs.30,000/--
under the conventional heads. Thus,
Thus, granting total compensation of
Rs.5,10,000/-- on account of death of child Seema @ Sneha. The 2 claimants
are the parents of deceased Seema @ Sneha.
10. From the above facts, it is clear that a very just and fair
compensation has been awarded to the appellant
appellants. Nothing whatsoever
has been shown to this Court that would merit enhancement of the
compensation granted to the appellants.
appellant . Accordingly, in view of the
discussion above, I find no case is made out which merits interference
with the impugned Award. No doubt Chapter
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
'State of Haryana & Another Vs. Jasbir Kaur & Others'
Supreme Court in 'State
Law Finder Doc ID # 64043 and 'Divisional Controller K.S.R.T.C. Vs.
Mahadev 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 ssame time it should not be a
pittance. Thus, all that has to be determined in the facts of a given case is,
that the compensation accorded is 'just'. In my considered view, in the
present case, the learned Tribunal has awarded a very 'just'
8 of 9
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:041014
compensation, which
which is in accordance with the law laid down by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court and therefore, does not warrant the interference
of this Court. In the case of "General Manager, KSRTC Vs. Susamma
Thomas & Others" 1994 Volume-II
Volume II SCC 176, the Hon'ble Supreme Court
has
as held that misplaced sympathy, generosity and benevolence cannot be
the guiding factor for determining the compensation.
11. Learned counsel for the appellants is unable to dispute
or controvert the aforesaid facts and findings.
12. In view of the above, both the present appeals are
dismissed.
13. Pending application(s) if any also stand(s) disposed of.
25.03.2025 (Nidhi Gupta)
Sunena Judge
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
Whether reportable: Yes/No
9 of 9
