[Cites 12, Cited by 0]
Punjab-Haryana High Court
Reena vs Jitender Singh And Ors on 6 February, 2026
FAO-2453-2005 WITH FAO-2452-2005 (O&M)
- 1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
102
Date of decision: 06.02.2026
1. FAO-2453-2005
OM PARKASH AND ORS. ....Appellants
Versus
JITENDER SINGH AND ORS. ...Respondents
2. FAO-2452-2005 (O&M)
REENA ....Appellant
Versus
JITENDER SINGH AND ORS. ...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHVIR SINGH RATHOR
Present : Mr. Rakesh Nehra, Sr. Advocate with
Mr. Bindu Tanwar, Advocate
for the appellant(s).
Mr. Maninder Arora, Advocate with
Mr. Harmeet Singh, Advocate
for respondent No.3-Insurance Company.
YASHVIR SINGH RATHOR. J.(Oral)
1. The aforesaid two appeals have been instituted against the Award
1 of 12
FAO-2453-2005 WITH FAO-2452-2005 (O&M)
- 2-
dated 08.02.2005 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Rohtak (for short
"Tribunal") in the petitions under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, filed
by the appellants, seeking compensation on account of death of Smt.Krishana and
injuries suffered by claimant-Reena.
2. Claim petition No.40 of 2004, titled Om Parkash and Others Vs.
Jitender Singh and Others was instituted by husband and two sons of deceased-
Krishana, seeking compensation to the extent of Rs.10 lakhs on account of death
of Smt. Krishana in the road accident.
3. The second claim petition No.41 of 2004, titled as Reena Vs. Jitender
Singh and Others was instituted by claimant-Reena, aged 16 years, seeking
compensation of Rs.7 lakhs on account of injuries suffered by her in the said
accident.
4. The only issue required to be determined in the present appeals
relates to the assessment of compensation. Therefore, the entire facts regarding
the manner of the accident are not required to be reproduced in detail, as the
Tribunal has already held under Issue No.1 that the accident occurred due to the
rash and negligent driving on the part of respondent No.1 while driving the
offending bus No. HR-46-6369, owned by respondent No.2 and insured with
respondent No.3. No appeal or cross-objections have been filed by respondents,
challenging the said finding and accordingly finding on issue No.1 is not required
to be interfered with.
5. From the pleadings of parties, following issues were framed:-
1. Whether the accident in question took place due to the rash
and negligent driving of bus No.HR-46-6369 by Jintender Singh,
respondent No.1?OPR
2 of 12
FAO-2453-2005 WITH FAO-2452-2005 (O&M)
- 3-
2. Whether Krishana alias Kishni wife of Om Parkash (MACT
case titled Om Parkash etc. Versus Jitender Singh etc.) has died as
result of injuries suffered in the accident, if so, to what amount of
compensation, the applicants are entitled to?OPP.
3. Whether Reena, minor, (MACT case titled Reena Versus.
Jitender Singh etc.), applicant amount of compensation, she is
entitled to?OPP.
4. Whether Jitender Singh, respondent No.1 was holding a valid
driving licence at the time of accident, if so, its effect?OPR.
5. Relief.
6. Thereafter, the parties led evidence in support of their respective
case.
7. After hearing the parties and going through the material on the file,
learned Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.2,08,000/- as compensation to the
claimants, on account of death of Smt. Krishana and a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- was
awarded as compensation to claimant-Reena on account of injuries suffered by her
along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of claim petition till
realization.
8. Feeling aggrieved, the appeals in hand have been preferred. The
material on file has been perused and parties have been heard.
9. At the very outset, it is pertinent to mention that the record of the
appeal as well as the Tribunal has got burnt in a fire incident in the branch and the
appeal in hand shall be decided as per facts and evidence mentioned in the award
passed by the Tribunal.
10. Compensation in FAO-2453-2005, Om Parkash and Ors. Vs
Jitender Singh and Others, arising out of MACT No.40-MACT of 2004:-
11. As per version of claimants, deceased-Krishana was 53 years of age.
3 of 12
FAO-2453-2005 WITH FAO-2452-2005 (O&M)
- 4-
The accident took place on 28.12.2003 and she was taken to PGI, Rohtak, where
she died on 09.01.2004, while she was under treatment. A sum of Rs.70,000/- was
allegedly spent on her treatment. As per version of claimants, deceased used to
help her husband in selling flowers while sitting on a pavement at Quilla road,
Rohtak and both of them used to earn Rs.15,000/- per month. Medical bills Ex. P-
22 and Ex. P-23 issued by Azad Hind Medicos, PGIMS Comples, Rohtak
amounting to Rs.22,255/- and Rs.8,545/- have been placed on record to prove the
expenses incurred on her treatment.
12. Learned Tribunal after going through the material on file assessed the
income of deceased to be Rs.1,500/- per month. It was further held that as per
post-mortem report Ex. P3, her age was 55 years and her age was accordingly
taken as 55 years and multiplier of 11 was applied and a sum of Rs.1,98,000/- was
assessed as compensation. A sum of Rs.10,000/- was added for the expenses
incurred on the treatment and in all, a sum of Rs.2,08,000/- was awarded as
compensation.
13. The term just compensation has been elaborated by Hon'ble Supreme
Court in 2009(1) RCR (Civil) 867 (SC), Syed Basheer Ahamed and Others Vs.
Mohd. Jameel and Another, and it has been held that while assessing
compensation in a motor accident claims case, the Tribunal should award
compensation which appears to be just. The expression "which appears to be just"
vests a wide discretion in the Tribunal in the matter of determination of
compensation. Nevertheless, the wide amplitude of such power does not empower
the Tribunal to determine the compensation arbitrarily, or to ignore settled
principles relating to determination of compensation. It has been further held that
4 of 12
FAO-2453-2005 WITH FAO-2452-2005 (O&M)
- 5-
although the Act is a beneficial legislation, it can neither be allowed to be used as
a source of profit, nor as a windfall to the persons affected nor should it be
punitive to the persons liable to pay compensation and that determination of
compensation must be based on certain data establishing reasonable nexus
between the loss incurred by the victim or dependents. It has been further held that
misplaced sympathy, generosity and benevolence cannot be the guiding factors for
determining the compensation.
14. Coming to the facts of this case in hand, PW1-Om Parkash, while
appearing in the witness-box deposed that deceased used to help in selling flowers
while sitting on a pavement and they both used to earn Rs.15,000/- per month.
However, learned Tribunal observed that statement of PW1-Om Parkash is at
variance from the pleadings. In the claim petition, it has been pleaded that
deceased was running a flower shop and was earning Rs.10,000/- per month.
Whereas, while appearing as PW1, he stated that he alongwith his wife used to sell
flowers while sitting on a pavement and they used to earn Rs.15,000/- per month
and as such, the version of PW1 was not believed and was discarded. Even
otherwise, there is no other cogent and convincing evidence on the file, except the
self-serving and bald statement of PW1 that deceased was earning Rs.10,000/- per
month and no reliance can thus be placed upon the same. However, this Court
cannot lose sight of the fact that deceased must have been rendering gratuitous
services to the claimants being their wife and mother and she thus has to be treated
as a home-maker. Hon'ble Supreme Court in AIR 2021 (SC) 353, titled Kirti Vs.
Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. has held that the income of a home-maker should at
least be assessed by adopting the lowest minimum wages applicable for unskilled
5 of 12
FAO-2453-2005 WITH FAO-2452-2005 (O&M)
- 6-
workers. Future prospects too have to be applied, while assessing the monthly
income and amount incurred on personal expenses also has to be deducted. It has
been further held that in view of totality of circumstances and contribution of a
housewife towards household, 25% additional gratuitous income should be added
towards salary. In that case, the monthly income of deceased was assessed as
Rs.5,547/- to which 40% amount was added towards future prospects. 1/4th of the
income was deducted towards personal and living expenses and multiplier of 17
was applied. In addition to it, 25% additional gratuitous income was added to the
salary on account of services rendered by her as a home-maker and the
compensation was assessed.
15. In the present case, the accident had taken place on 28.12.2003 and
death had taken place on 09.01.2004. Even labourers used to earn around
Rs.2,000/- per month during those days, which were the minimum wages.
Accordingly, income of the deceased is taken as Rs.2,000/- per month instead of
Rs.1,500/- as taken by the Tribunal.
16. As per version of petitioners, deceased was 53 years of age but in the
post-mortem report Ex. P3, her age was mentioned as 55 years and learned
Tribunal had taken her age to be 55 years and there is no reason to take a contrary
view. Accordingly, 10% amount has to be added to the income of deceased
towards future prospects in view of law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in
2009(6) SCC 121, "Smt. Sarla Verma and Others Vs. Delhi Transport
Corporation and Another and 2017 ACJ 2700, 'National Insurance Co. Ltd Vs.
Pranay Sethi and Others' which takes the monthly income of deceased to
Rs.2,200/- per month.
6 of 12
FAO-2453-2005 WITH FAO-2452-2005 (O&M)
- 7-
17. Deceased has left behind three dependents and as such, 1/3rd of the
income has to be deducted towards personal and living expenses and after
deducting the same, the monthly loss of dependency comes out to Rs.1,467/- and
the annual loss of dependency comes out to Rs.17,604/-.
18. Deceased was 55 years of age and as such multiplier of 11 has to be
applied as per Sarla Verma's case (supra), and after applying the same, the
compensation comes to Rs.1,93,644/-.
19. Besides this 25% of the income of Rs.2,200/- per month (including
future prospects) has to be added as gratuitous income on account of services
being rendered by the deceased as a home-maker, which comes to Rs.550/- per
month and Rs.6,600/- (Rs.550 x 12) per annum. After applying multiplier of 11, it
comes to Rs.72,600/- ( Rs.6,600/- x 11). Appellants are thus also entitled to a sum
of Rs.72,600/- on account of services rendered by deceased as a home-maker,
which takes the compensation to Rs.2,66,244/- ( Rs.1,93,644 + Rs.72,600/-)
20. As per law laid down in Pranay Sethi's case (supra) claimant No.1
is held entitled to a sum of Rs.70,000/- under conventional heads i.e. loss of
consortium, loss of estate and on account of funeral expenses. Both the claimants,
who are sons, are also held entitled to a sum of Rs.40,000/- each towards
consortium, (Rs.40,000/- X 2) in view of law laid down in 2018 (4) R.C.R. (Civil)
333, 'Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram alias Chuhru Ram &
Others', which takes the compensation to Rs.4,16,244/- (rounded to
Rs.4,16,000/-). After adding medical expenses of Rs.10,000/- which have already
been awarded by the Tribunal, the compensation comes out to Rs.4,26,000/-.
21. Accordingly, the compensation to be awarded to the appellants reads
7 of 12
FAO-2453-2005 WITH FAO-2452-2005 (O&M)
- 8-
as under:-
S.No. Under Head Compensation awarded by the Compensation
Tribunal awarded by the High
Court
1. Monthly income of deceased Rs.1500/- per month 2,000/- per month
2. Age of deceased 55 years 55 years
3. Future prospects @10% Nil Rs.200/-
4. Total income Rs.1,500/- per month Rs.2,200/- per month
Rs.18,000/- per annum Rs.26,400/- per
annum
6. Deduction towards personal Nil Rs.733/- per month
expenses of the deceased (1/3rd) Rs.8,796/- per annum
7. Annual loss of dependency Nil Rs.17,604/- (26,400-
Rs,8,796/-)
9. Total loss of dependency Rs.1,98,000/- (Rs.18,000/- X 11) Rs.1,93,644/-
(Rs.17,604/- X 11)
10. Addition of 25% of gratuitous Nil Rs.72,600/- (Rs.550/-
income X 12 X 11)
11. Compensation to claimant No.1 Nil 70,000/-
for loss of consortium, estate &
funeral expenses
12. Compensation to claimant No.2 Nil Rs.80,000/-
and 3 on account of parental (Rs.40,000/-+
consortium Rs.40,000/-)
13. Medical expenses Rs.10,000/- Rs.10,000/-
14. Total Compensation Rs.2,08,000/- Rs.4,26,244/-
(rounded to
Rs.4,26,000/-)
15. Interest 9% 9%
22. Resultantly, appeal in hand is partly accepted with costs and
appellants are held entitled to a sum of Rs.2,18,000/- (Rs.4,26,000/- -
Rs.2,08,000/-) as enhanced compensation over and above the compensation
awarded by the Tribunal alongwith interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the
date of filing of claim petition i.e. 12.03.2004 till realization and respondents No.1
to 3 are liable to pay compensation to the appellants/claimants jointly and
severally. Out of the enhanced compensation, a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- be paid
alongwith proportionate interest to appellant No.1 and remaining amount be given
8 of 12
FAO-2453-2005 WITH FAO-2452-2005 (O&M)
- 9-
to appellants No.2 to 3 in equal shares alongwith proportionate interest.
23. Compensation in FAO-2452-2005, Reena Vs Jitender Singh and
Others, arising out of MACT No.41-MACT of 2004:-
24. As per version of appellant/claimant, she had suffered fracture of
shaft femur of right side and both bones of right leg. She was operated upon and
nail was inserted and she remained hospitalized up to 10.01.2004 i.e. for 13 days.
She further requires an operation to remove the nail/implant after union of the
fracture, as has been deposed by Dr. Zile Singh Kundy (PW2), Orthopedic
Surgeon, PGIMS, Rohtak. He further deposed that he alongwith Dr. N.K. Magoo
and Dr. Raj Singh had medically examined Ms. Reena and assessed her disability.
She was found to be suffering from 4% permanent disability and 12% temporary
disability. The permanent disability was on account of shortening of right limb by
1 inch and temporary disability was on account of pain and non-union of femur
and tibia right leg and thigh and she tendered the disability certificate as Ex. P1.
25. Claimant-Reena, while appearing as PW3, deposed that she was 16
years of age and was unmarried. Her right leg has been shortened by one inch and
she has spent Rs.17,000/- on her treatment. Prior to the accident, she used to knit
darries and earn Rs.3,000/- per month but now, she cannot earn anything.
Petitioner has also led in evidence medical bills Exhibits P6 to P10 amounting to
Rs.11,653/- and prescription slips Exhibits P11 to P21. Learned Tribunal did not
rely upon the medical vouchers Exhibits P6 to P10, and awarded her a lump sum
compensation of Rs.1,50,000/-, which in my opinion has not been properly
assessed and same is grossly inadequate.
26. Admittedly, appellant had suffered fractures of shaft femur of right
9 of 12
FAO-2453-2005 WITH FAO-2452-2005 (O&M)
- 10-
side and both bones of right leg. She was operated upon and an implant was
inserted, which is again required to be removed by performing another surgery. It
is well known that pain component in such type of injuries is enormous, as such
injuries take a long time to heal. Accordingly, appellant is held entitled to a sum
of Rs.45,000/- on account of pain and suffering.
27. Appellant had suffered permanent disability to the extent of 4%
alongwith shortening of her right leg by one inch. Appellant was unmarried and a
young girl of 16 years of age and shortening of her leg will certainly diminish her
marriage prospects. She will have to live with a shortened leg throughout her life
and will not be able to walk properly and will suffer on account of loss of
amenities as well. Accordingly, she is held entitled to a sum of Rs.1,20,000/- on
account of permanent disability, loss of marriage prospects and loss of amenities.
28. The injuries suffered by the petitioner were grievous and she was
operated upon and it must have taken at least 05 months for the injuries to heal.
During this period, she must have visited the hospitals, must have engaged an
attendant and she must have spent some amount on special diet and accordingly,
she is held entitled to a sum of Rs.15,000/- under this head.
29. During the period of recovery from injuries for at least 05 months,
she would not have been able to do any work. Taking her monthly income to be
around Rs.2,000/- per month, she is held entitled to a sum of Rs.10,000/- for loss
of income during the period she remained under treatment. In addition to this, she
has led in evidence the medical bills Exs. P6 to P10, amounting to Rs.11,653/-
alongwith prescription slips Exs.P11 to P21 but the same have been ignored on the
ground that the bills have not been proved. However, it is a matter of common
10 of 12
FAO-2453-2005 WITH FAO-2452-2005 (O&M)
- 11-
knowledge that proceedings before the Tribunal are of summary nature. If there is
some evidence before a Tribunal, in order to prove a fact, then no unnecessary
doubt or suspicion should weigh with it in deciding the claim case. The provisions
of Indian Evidence Act are not applicable to such summary proceedings and the
probative value of the documents should not be suspected without any reasonable
cause as the assessment of compensation involves some amount of guess work,
hypothesis, consideration and sympathy of the Tribunal, as held in 1995 ACJ 366
(SC), titled R.D Hattangadi Vs. Pest Control (India) Pvt. Ltd. Reference can also
be made to 1990 ACJ 127, titled National Insurance Co. Vs. Saloni Dargan and
Others,. Hon'ble Supreme Court in 2019 ACJ 454 Vimla Devi and Others Vs.
National Insurance Co. Ltd. has held that "At the outset, we may reiterate as has
been consistently said by this Court in a series of cases that the Act is a beneficial
piece of legislation enacted to give solace to the victims of motor accidents who
suffer bodily injury or die untimely. The Act is designed in a manner which
relieves the victims from ensuring strict compliance provided in law, which are
otherwise applicable to the suits and other proceedings while prosecuting the
claim petitions filed under the Act for claiming compensation for the loss
sustained by them in the accident".
30. However, the Tribunal has not given cogent reasons while ignoring
the medical bills produced by the appellant. Appellant is accordingly held entitled
to a sum of Rs.11,653/- spent on her treatment.
31. Resultantly, the compensation to be awarded to the appellant is
assessed as under:-
S.No. Under Head
1. Pain and sufferings Rs.45,000/-
11 of 12
FAO-2453-2005 WITH FAO-2452-2005 (O&M)
- 12-
2. Compensation on account of permanent disability, Rs.1,20,000/-
shortening of leg, loss of amenities and marriage
prospects
3. Expenses on special diet, transportation and 15,000/-
attendant charges
4. Loss of income during the period of treatment Rs.10,000/-
5. Medical expenses Rs.11,653/-
6. Total Rs. 2,01,653/- (rounded to
Rs.2,02,000/-)
32. Resultantly, the appeal in hand is partly accepted with costs and
appellant is held entitled to a sum of Rs. 52,000/- (Rs.2,02,000/- - Rs.1,50,000/-)
as enhanced compensation over and above the compensation awarded by the
Tribunal along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of
claim petition i.e. 12.03.2004 till realization payable by respondents No.1 to 3
jointly and severally. The entire amount of compensation shall be paid to the
appellant in cash as the compensation is meagre.
33. Registry is directed to email the authenticated copy of the award to
the respondent Insurance Company in terms of direction issued by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Writ Petition (Civil) No.534 of 2020 titled Bajaj Allianz
General Insurance Company Versus Union of India and others, decided on
16.03.2021 and Insurance Company shall comply with the directions as issued
under Clause (F) of the said judgment.
34. A photocopy of this order be placed on the file of the connected case.
35. Pending misc. application (s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.
(YASHVIR SINGH RATHOR)
06.02.2026 JUDGE
amandeep Whether speaking/reasoned. : Yes/No
Whether Reportable. : Yes/No
12 of 12
