JUDGMENT :

Yashvir Singh Rathor, J.

1. This appeal has been instituted against the Award dated 02.11.2004 for enhancement of compensation awarded in MACT case No.259 of 2004 decided by the MACT (Adhoc) Patiala (for short “Tribunal”) in a petition under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 vide which a sum of Rs.3,75,000/- has been awarded as compensation to the claimants/appellants on account of death of Gurdarshan Singh in a motor vehicle accident.

2. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the material on record.

3. From the pleadings of parties, following issues were framed:-

“1. Whether Sh. Gurdarshan Singh, died due to rash and negligent driving of Gurmail Singh respondent no.1 in an accident which occurred on 11.6.2002 with canter no.HR 37-6367?OPP

2. Whether the claimants are entitled to any compensation, if so to what amount and from whom?OPP

3. Whether Gurmail Singh respondent no.1 was not holding valid driving licence as on the date of accident?OPR3.

4. Whether the petition is collusive between the claimants and respondents No.1 and 2?OPR3

5. Whether Canter No.Hr-37-6367 was not holding valid route permit and fitness certificate?OPR3.

5. Relief.”

4. Thereafter, the parties led evidence in support of their case.

5. After hearing the parties and going through the material on the file, learned Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.3,75,000/- as compensation to the claimants/ appellants, on account of death of Gurdarshan Singh.

6. Feeling aggrieved, the appeal in hand has been preferred. The material on file has been perused and parties have been heard.

7. The only issue required to be determined in the present appeal 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 canter No.HR-37-6367, owned by respondent No.2 and insured with respondent No.3 and they have been held liable to pay compensation jointly and severally. 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.

8. 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 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. As such, compensation is required to be assessed by taking into consideration above-said parameters.

9. As per version of the claimants, deceased was working in Glaxo Smith Kline Pvt. Ltd., Nabha and was getting salary of Rs.8,100/- per month. To prove this fact, the claimants have examined PW2 Sumeet Bansal, Junior Finance Officer, Galaxo Smith Kline Pvt. Ltd., Nabha, who produced the salary and service record of deceased- Gurdarshan Singh. He deposed that deceased was working as a Production Workman i