[Cites 7, Cited by 0]
Punjab-Haryana High Court
Surinder Kumar And Anr vs Satnam Singh And Ors on 22 January, 2026
FAO-3527-2018 Page 1 of 5
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
220
FAO-3527-2018(O&M)
Date of decision: 22.01.2026
Surinder Kumar & Another
...Appellant(s)
Vs.
Satnam Singh (since deceased) through LRs & Others
...Respondent(s)
***
CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA
Present:- Mr. Akhilesh Vyas, Advocate
for the appellants.
Mr. Punit Jain, Advocate
for respondent No.3.
***
NIDHI GUPTA, J.
CM-12382-CII-2018
This is an application under Section 151 CPC for condonation of
delay of 290 days in re-filing the appeal.
The only reason cited in the application for not filing the present
appeal within limitation is in Para 2, which reads as follows:-
"2. That the above mentioned appeal was earlier filed on
03.06.2016, but the case was returned with some objections
raised by the registry on same date i.e. 03.06.2016. However, the
case filed has got mixed up and same was located on yesterday,
because it was mixed with some admitted cases. Hence the delay
of 290 days has occurred in re-filing the appeal."
The said averments of the applicant/appellant are vague and
general, and do not constitute sufficient cause for condonation of inordinate
1 of 5
and extraordinary delay of 290 days in re-filing the present appeal. Present
application accordingly stands dismissed.
CM-12383-CII-2018
This is an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for
condonation of delay of 344 days in filing the appeal.
The only reason cited in the application for not filing the present
appeal within limitation is in Para 2, which reads as follows:-
"2. That the appellants are poor persons and having no source
of income could not manage the requisite expenses to file the
appeal within limitation and thus the delay occurred."
The said averments of the applicant/appellant are vague and
general, and do not constitute sufficient cause for condonation of inordinate
and extraordinary delay of 344 days in filing the present appeal. Present
application accordingly stands dismissed.
MAIN CASE
Present appeal has been filed by the claimants seeking
enhancement of compensation of Rs.5,80,000/- awarded by the Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal, Amritsar (hereinafter 'the learned Tribunal') vide
Award dated 03.11.2015 passed in MAC Case No.155 dated 20.05.2014
filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act (hereinafter "the Act").
The two claimants are the 45-year-old husband and 18-year-old son of
deceased Sheetal Sharma, who was 40 years old at the time of accident.
2 of 5
2. Brief facts of the case are that the ld. Tribunal on the basis of
pleadings and oral & documentary evidence adduced by the parties,
concluded that deceased Sheetal Sharma had died due to the injuries
suffered by her in a motor vehicular accident that took place on 29.10.2013
due to the rash and negligent driving of Truck bearing registration No.PB-
03Y-5644 (hereinafter "the offending vehicle") being driven by respondent
No.1, owned by respondent No.2 and insured by respondent No.3. The said
compensation has been awarded along with interest @ 7.5% per annum.
Respondents were held jointly and severally liable for payment of
compensation amount.
3. Learned counsel for the appellants seeks enhancement of
compensation by submitting that income of the deceased has been
assessed on the lower side. Nothing has been granted by way of future
prospects. Multiplier of 17 should have been applied instead of 15. Loss of
consortium is liable to be enhanced to Rs.1,00,000/-. Funeral expenses
should be Rs.1,50,000/-; and loss of love and affection should be
Rs.2,00,000/-. It is accordingly prayed that the present appeal be allowed
and the impugned Award be modified.
4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent No.3 opposes
the submissions advanced on behalf of the appellants and submits that the
impugned Award suffers from no error; and the present appeal deserves to
be dismissed.
3 of 5
5. No other argument is made on behalf of the parties. I have
heard learned counsel and perused the case file in detail. I find no merit in
the submissions advanced on behalf of the appellants.
6. It was the pleaded case of the appellants before the learned
Tribunal that prior to the accident, the deceased was running a Boutique and
earning Rs.20,000/- per month. However, the appellants miserably failed to
lead any evidence in this regard. In these circumstances, learned Tribunal had
correctly assessed notional income of the deceased as Rs.3,000/- per month
towards the gratuitous services rendered by the deceased. In determining
income of the deceased, learned Tribunal had relied upon judgment in Rahul
Gupta & Others Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors. 1 (2008) ACC 19.
Keeping in view the fact that the accident is of the year 2013, I find no error
in the assessment of contribution of the deceased in the household work.
Thus, annual income was calculated to be Rs.36,000/- (Rs.3000x12).
7. Further, age of the deceased was determined to be 40 years on
the basis of her Post-Mortem Report (Ex.P1). Accordingly, Tribunal had
correctly applied multiplier of 15; thereby calculating compensation to be
Rs.36,000 x 15 = Rs.5,40,000/-. Learned Tribunal has further awarded
consortium of Rs.10,000/- to claimant No.1/husband; Rs.25,000/- towards
funeral expenses; and Rs.5,000/- towards loss of estate; thereby awarding
total compensation of Rs.5,80,000/-.
4 of 5
8. From the above, it is clear that in the facts and circumstances
of the case, a very just and fair compensation has been awarded to the
appellants. Nothing whatsoever has been shown to this Court that would
merit enhancement of the compensation granted to the appellants. No
doubt 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 Supreme Court in 'State of Haryana
& Another Vs. Jasbir Kaur & Others' Law Finder Doc ID # 64043 and
'Divisional Controller K.S.R.T.C. Vs. Mahadeva 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 same time
it should not be a pittance. In the case of "General Manager, KSRTC Vs.
Susamma Thomas & Others" 1994 Volume-II SCC 176, the Hon'ble
Supreme Court has held that misplaced sympathy, generosity and
benevolence cannot be the guiding factor for determining the
compensation.
9. In view of the above, present appeal stands dismissed on
grounds of delay as well as on merits.
10. Pending application(s) if any also stand(s) disposed of.
22.01.2026 (Nidhi Gupta)
Sunena Judge
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
Whether reportable: Yes/No
5 of 5
