[Cites 6, Cited by 0]

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Rambati And Others vs Junish And Others on 16 January, 2026

                FAO-2522-2021 (O&M)                                           -1 -




                        IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

                   106                                                FAO-2522-2021 (O&M)
                                                                 Date of decision: 16.01.2026

                Rambati and others
                                                                                 ...Appellant(s)
                                                        Vs.

                Junish and others
                                                                              ...Respondent(s)
                CORAM:         HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA

                Present:-      Mr. Tushar Gera, Advocate for the appellants.

                          ***
                NIDHI GUPTA, J.

The present appeal has been filed by the claimants seeking

enhancement of compensation of Rs.10,22,215/- awarded by Motor

Accident Claims Tribunal, Palwal (hereinafter "the learned Tribunal") vide

Award dated 22.02.2021 passed in MACT Case No. 131 dated 20.09.2018

filed u/s 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, (hereinafter "the Act"). The 3

claimants are the 52-year-old widow; 26-yer-old son; and 31-year-old son

of deceased Prakash alias Om Parkash, who was 55 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-

Prakash had died due to the injuries suffered by him in a motor vehicular

accident that took place on 20.06.2018 at about 4 p.m. due to the rash

and negligent driving of a Truck bearing registration No. HR-73-8257

(hereinafter "the offending vehicle") being driven by respondent No.1;

FAO-2522-2021 (O&M) -2 -

owned by respondent No.2; and insured by respondent No.3. The Tribunal

awarded above said compensation along with interest @ 7.5% per annum.

All the respondents were held jointly and severally liable to pay the

amount of compensation.

3. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the

impugned Award deserves to be modified as the learned Tribunal was in

error in dismissing Claim Petition qua claimants No. 2 and 3 who are sons

of the deceased. It is submitted that therefore, deduction of 1/4th ought

to have been made instead of 1/3rd. Even consortium has not been

awarded to claimants No.2 and 3. Even income of the deceased has been

wrongly assessed as only Rs.9,837/- p.m. Learned counsel contends that

it was proved on record that deceased was a milk vendor and agriculturist.

As such, his income ought to have been assessed as that of a highly skilled

labour. It is accordingly prayed that the present Appeal be allowed; and

the impugned Award be modified/enhanced.

4. No other argument is raised on behalf of learned counsel for

the appellants. I have heard ld. counsel and perused the case file in detail.

I find no merit in the submissions advanced on behalf of the appellants.

5. Perusal of the record of the case shows that the pleaded case

of the appellants was that the deceased was an agriculturist and also a

milk vendor. It was further pleaded that deceased was owner of 4 acres of

land as per Jamabandi Ex.P14 to Ex.P21. It is admitted fact on record that

the said land holding of the deceased has devolved upon the claimants. As

such, income of the deceased was only required to be assessed as per the

FAO-2522-2021 (O&M) -3 -

managerial/supervisory wages for managing the said land. Accordingly,

learned Tribunal had taken income of the deceased as Rs.9,837/- p.m. as

that of a skilled labourer as per relevant DC rate. Contention of the

appellants that the same ought to have been assessed as that of a highly

skilled labourer is without merit and is accordingly rejected. In any event,

appellants have been unable to produce any Notification to show the

wages payable to a highly skilled worker. Accordingly, I find no error in the

income of Rs.9,837/- p.m. as assessed by the learned Tribunal.

6. It has next been contended that Claim Petition qua claimants

No. 2 and 3, who are major sons of the deceased, could not be dismissed.

I find no merit in the said argument either. On the contrary, deceased

being a fairly aged man of 55 years, should be held to be dependent upon

his young and able sons, who were aged 26 and 31 years respectively. It

has been held by Hon'ble Supreme Court that no doubt major married

children of the deceased are his Legal Representatives, however, grant of

compensation is to be assessed in the facts and circumstances of each

case. Reference is made to a judgment passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court

in National Insurance Company Limited v. Birender (SC) : Law Finder Doc

Id # 1665184, wherein it is clearly held that Legal Representatives of the

deceased only have a "...right to apply for compensation and it would be

the bounden duty of the Tribunal to consider the application irrespective

of the fact whether the concerned legal representative was fully

dependent on the deceased and not to limit the claim towards

conventional heads only...". Accordingly, as per the said pronouncement,

FAO-2522-2021 (O&M) -4 -

the Legal Representatives/appellants only have a "right to apply" for

compensation and it is for the learned Tribunal to consider whether the

said Legal Representatives were "fully dependent" on the deceased. In the

present case, nothing has been shown to this Court to prove that the

claimants No.2 and 3 were "fully dependent" on the deceased. Nothing

has been shown to this Court to prove the financial dependence of the

said claimants upon the deceased. On the contrary, in the present case,

the land holding of the deceased has been inherited by the claimants; and

claimants No.2 and 3 are admitted to be young and able sons of the

deceased; and nothing has been brought on record to show the financial

dependence of the claimants no.2 and 3 upon the deceased. As such, I

find no error in the Award.

7. Age of the deceased was proved to be 55 years on the basis

of his Postmortem Report Ex.P6. Learned Tribunal had therefore, correctly

made addition of 10% towards future prospects; thereby calculating

annual income of the deceased as Rs.1,29,848 (Rs.9,837 x 12 =

Rs.1,18,044 + Rs.11,804 (10%)). The Tribunal had made a deduction of

1/3rd in the income of the deceased towards personal expenses; thereby

calculating dependency to be Rs.86,565/- p.a. (Rs.1,29,848-Rs.43,283).

Learned Tribunal had correctly applied multiplier of 11; thereby

calculating compensation to be Rs.9,52,215/- (Rs.86,565 x 11).

8. Under the conventional heads, learned Tribunal had awarded

Rs.40,000/- to claimant No.1 as spousal consortium; Rs.15,000/- towards

FAO-2522-2021 (O&M) -5 -

loss of estate; and Rs.15,000/- towards loss of funeral expenses; thereby

granting total compensation of Rs.10,22,215/-.

9. It has been argued on behalf of the appellants that nothing

has been awarded by way of consortium to claimants no.2 and 3. The

Hon'ble Supreme Court in (SC) SLP No.13931 of 2017 titled as "New India

Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Vinish Jain & Others" Law Finder Doc ID #

977386, has held that where difference in compensation is about 4 to 5

per cent only, it does not warrant interference by this Court as, such

variation in compensation is within permissible limits.

10. This above-said judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court has

been followed by the Kerala High Court in "The Managing Director,

Divisional Controller Versus Alikutty and Others" Law Finder Doc Id #

1885188. Relevant para 18 of the said judgment is reproduced below:

"18. It is to be borne in mind, the accident occurred on 23,2,2019. It is more than 2 ½ years since the respondents 1 to 4 have been knocking at the doors of the Courts seeking compensation on account of the death of the bread-winner. It is trite law that the Tribunal is permitted to do some guess work and also exercise its discretion to fix the reasonable and just compensation, for which there cannot be any strait- jacket formula based on mathematical precision. In New In- dia Assurance Company Vs. Vinish Jain and Others [(2018) 3 SCC 619], the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that if the fixation of compensation is within permissible limits, the courts should normally not interfere with such awards".

11. Above said view has been reiterated by the Kerala High Court

in "Reliance General Insurance Company Limited Vs. Adila and Others",

Law Finder Doc ID # 1921609, paras 16 and 17 of which read as under:-

FAO-2522-2021 (O&M) -6 -

"16. The other area of dispute is that the Tribunal after awarding compensation under the conventional heads has awarded Rs.75,000/- towards loss of love and affection and Rs.10,000/- awarded towards pain and suf- ferings.

17. In New India Assurance Co., Ltd v.

Vineesh.J[2018 (3) SCC 619], the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the Appellate Court can permit variation of plus or minus 4 to 5 percent."

12. The Apex Court in the case of Reshma Kumari supra has

further gone on to hold that: "Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, Section 168 -

Section 168 provides that amount of compensation awarded by the Claims

Tribunal which appears to it to be just - The expression, 'just' means that

the amount so determined is fair, reasonable and equitable by accepted

legal standards and not a forensic lottery - Obviously 'just compensation'

does not mean 'perfect' or 'absolute' compensation - The just

compensation principle requires examination of the particular situation

obtaining uniquely in an individual case."

13. Learned counsel for the appellants is unable to controvert or