JUDGMENT :

Yashvir Singh Rathor, J. 

1. This appeal has been instituted against the Award dated 17.08.2004 for enhancement of compensation awarded in MACT case No.38 decided by the MACT, Faridabad (for short “Tribunal”) in a petition under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 vide which a sum of Rs.10,89,760/- has been awarded as compensation to the claimants alongwith interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of claim petition till realization on account of death of Rajender Kumar Yadav in a motor vehicular accident which took place due to rash and negligent driving on the part of respondent No.1 while driving offending vehicle bearing No.HR-38E-9509 (for short ‘offending vehicle’), owned by respondents No.2 and 2(a), which was insured with respondent No.3.

2. From the pleadings of parties, following issues were framed by the ld. MACT:-

“1. Whether the alleged accident resulting into the death of Rajender Kr. Yadav took place due to rash and negligent driving of Bus No.HR-38E-9509 by respondent No.1?OPP

2. If issue no.1 is proved, whether the petitioners are entitled to compensation and if so how much and from whom?OPP

3. Whether respondent No.1 was not holding a valid and effective driving licence on the date of alleged accident and if so its effect? OPR-3.

4. Relief.”

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

4. After hearing the parties and going through the material on the file, learned Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.10,89,760/- as compensation to the claimants, on account of death of Rajender Kumar Yadav along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of claim petition till realization.

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

6. 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 vehicle, owned by respondent No.2 and 2(a) 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.

7. 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.

8. As per version of the claimants, deceased namely Rajender Kumar Yadav was working with the Railways and was earning Rs.7,000/- per month. To prove his income, the claimants have examined PW3 Chander Kanta