JUDGMENT :

Yashvir Singh Rathor, J. 

1. This order shall dispose of above noted two appeals, as the same have emanated out of the same occurrence.

1. This appeal has been instituted against the Award dated 16.02.2005 for enhancement of compensation awarded in MACT case No.139 of 2002 decided by the MACT, Jhajjar (for short “Tribunal”) in a petition under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 vide which a sum of Rs.3,03,000/- has been awarded as compensation to the claimants/appellants alongwith interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of claim petition till realization on account of death of Dharampal in a motor vehicle accident.

FAO No.4836 of 2005 (O&M)

2. This appeal has been instituted by the owner and driver of the offending vehicle against the afore-said award vide which the Insurance Company has been exonerated of its liability to indemnify the owner and liability has been fastened upon owner and driver.

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

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

“1. Whether Dharampal son of Pokhar died in a motor vehicular accident as caused by respondent No.1 petitioner Mahender Singh by driving the vehicle bearing registration No.HR-26-A/7464 in a rash and negligent manner as alleged?OPP.

2. If issue No.1 is proved in affirmative, whether the petitioner is entitled to claim compensation. If so, to what amount and from which of the respondents? OPP.

3. Whether respondent No.1 was not holding a valid and effective driving license at the time of accident in question?OPR-3.

4. Whether the deceased was travelling in the vehicle in question as a passenger, if so, its effect?OPR-3

5. Relief.”

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

6. After hearing the parties and going through the material on the file, learned Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.3,03,000/- as compensation to the claimants/ appellants, on account of death of Dharampal along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of claim petition till realization.

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

8. The only issue required to be determined in the present appeals 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 truck No.HR-26-A-7464, owned by respondent No.2 and insured with respondent No.3. 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.

9. 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 guidi