IMPORTANT POINT
Death in motor accident – Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is a beneficial and welfare legislation and it is duty of Court to award just compensation.

JUDGMENT

AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH, J.

Leave granted.

2. The present appeal mounts a challenge to the Final Judgment and Order dated 24.05.2018 in FAO No.3026/2016 (O&M) (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Impugned Order’) passed by a learned Single Bench of the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to as the ‘High Court’), whereby the appeal filed by the appellants was partly allowed and the compensation awarded by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bhiwani (hereinafter referred to as the ‘MACT’) was enhanced from Rs.4,31,680/- (Rupees Four Lakhs Thirty-One Thousand Six Hundred Eighty) to Rs.5,96,761/- (Rupees Five Lakhs Ninety-Six Thousand Seven Hundred Sixty One) and interest was enhanced from 7% per annum to 7.5% per annum. After the matter traversed to this Court, it was referred to the Special Lok Adalat held in this Court on 31.07.2024, but the parties concerned could not reach an agreement.

FACTUAL PREMISE:

3. Briefly stated, the case set up by the appellants is that on 07.02.2003 at around 07:00 a.m., Smt. Tarawati, was going on foot to the bus stand of Village Sanjarwas Phogat, when the offending truck bearing Registration No.HR-46A-1118 being driven by the respondent no.1 came in a rash and negligent manner and crushed her to death. It was averred that the deceased was aged about 45 years at the time of her death and was earning a monthly income of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand), inclusive of income from agriculture and family pension. The appellants filed a claim petition bearing MVA Petition No.30 of 2003 claiming a total of Rs.15,00,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Lakhs). The MACT vide Award/Order dated 31.08.2015 awarded a compensation of Rs.4,31,680/- (Rupees Four Lakhs Thirty-One Thousand Six Hundred Eighty) along with interest at the rate of 7% per annum in the following manner:

4. Aggrieved by the MACT’s Award, the appellants approached the High Court by filing First Appeal from Order No.3026 of 2016 (O&M). The High Court, vide the Impugned Order, partly allowed the appeal and enhanced the compensation by Rs.1,65,081/- (Rupees One Lakh Sixty- Five Thousand Eighty-One). The High Court computed and granted compensation under various heads as under:

SUBMISSIONS BY THE APPELLANTS:

5. Learned counsel for the appellants argued that the compensation awarded by the High Court is inadequate and ought to be modified. It was put forth that the age of the deceased has been taken as 60 years purely on conjecture, presuming that as per societal norms, the wife would be two years younger to her husband. This flawed reasoning has been upheld by the High Court in the Impugned Order, inter alia, assuming the age of claimant no.1 as 42 years. It was argued that the aforesaid reasoning is incorrect inasmuch as the age of claimant no.1 was recorded as 30 years in the claim petition and the Post-Mortem Report dated 07.02.2003 clearly records the age of the deceased as being 45 years.

6. It wa