IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 05.02.2026 BALWINDER PAL ....Appellant Versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHVIR SINGH RATHOR Present : Mr. Vicky Sharma, Advocate for Mr. K.S. Dhaliwal, Advocate for the appellant.

Ms. Garima Kuthiala Prashar, Advocate for respondent No.1.

YASHVIR SINGH RATHOR. J.(Oral)

1. This appeal is directed against the Award dated 03.08.1998 passed in MACT Case No.36 by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Gurdaspur (for short “Tribunal”) in a petition under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 vide which a sum of Rs.25,000/- has been awarded as compensation to the claimant on account of injuries suffered by him in a motor vehicular accident and respondents were held liable to pay the amount of compensation to the claimant jointly and severally.

2. The only issue required to be determined in the present appeal relates to assessment of compensation on account of the injuries suffered by the appellant and, therefore, the entire facts of the case with regard to the manner of accident are not required to be reproduced here for the sake of brevity as Tribunal has come to the conclusion under issue No.1 that accident in question had taken place on account of rash and negligent driving on the part of respondent No.2, while driving the offending vehicle bearing No.86-D-63023-K and the said finding has not been assailed by the respondents either by filing any appeal or cross-

objections.

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

1. Whether the applicant suffered injuries on account of the rash and negligent driving of Military truck No.86-D-63023-K by respondent No.2?OPA

2. To what amount of compensation the applicant is entitled? If so from whom? OPA.

3. Whether the application is not maintainable in the present form?OPD.

4. Whether the applications within time? OPA

5. Whether the application is bad for mis-joinder of parties and non-joinder of parties?OPP

6. 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.25,000/- as compensation to the claimant along with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of filing of claim petition till realization.

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

7. At the very outset, it is pertinent to mention that the record of the appeal as well as the Tribunal has got burnt in a fire incident in the branch and the appeal in hand shall be decided as per facts and evidence mentioned in the award passed by the Tribunal.

8. In 2009(1) RCR (Civil) 867 (SC), Syed Basheer Ahamed and Others Vs. Mohd. Jameel and Another, it has been held by Hon’ble Supreme Court 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.

9. As per version of appellant, he had suffered fracture in his leg and he was operated upon on account of injuries suffered by him and he had incurred a sum of Rs