IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO-798-2026 (O&M)

Date of Decision: 18.02.2026 SHRI RAM GENERAL INSURANCE ......... Appellant Versus SANJU AND OTHERS ..... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHVIR SINGH RATHOR Present : Mr. Sachin Ohri, Advocate for the appellant.

****

YASHVIR SINGH RATHOR , J. (Oral)

1. This appeal has been preferred by Insurance Company against the Award dated 12.11.2025 passed by Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Sonipat (for short ‘Tribunal’) for reduction of the amount of compensation as awarded by the Tribunal to the claimants in a claim petition filed by them under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 on account of death of Rajesh Kumar due to rash and negligent driving on the part of respondent No.1 while driving the offending vehicle bearing No. HR-46E-1456, owned by respondent No.1 and insured with respondent No.2-appellant.

2. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and have gone through the material placed on the file.

3. Learned Tribunal, after going through the material placed on file, has assessed the compensation amount as under:-

Sr. Head of Compensation Amount No.

1. Loss of dependency Rs.30,24,000-00

2. Under Filial consortium Rs.44,000-00 3. Loss of estate Rs.16,500-00 4. Funeral expenses Rs.16,500-00 Total Rs.31,01,000-00

4. Learned counsel for the appellant argued that the deceased was a student of B.Tech (CSE) and his income has been assessed as Rs.20,000/- per month, which is on higher side and his income should have been assessed as per minimum wages prevalent on the date of accident for skilled persons and the awarded amount is, thus, liable to be reduced.

5. However, I do not find any force in the contentions raised by learned counsel for the appellant.

6. The term just compensation has been elaborated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of 2009(1) RCR (Civil) 867 (SC) Syed Basheer Ahamed and Others Vs. Mohd. Jameel and Another. 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. Furthermore, it should not be punitive to the persons liable to pay compensation and determination of compensation must be based on certain data establishing a 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.

7. As per version of the claimants, the deceased was pursuing B.Tech (CSE) course from Vaish College of Engineering, Rohtak and taking into consideration the background of the family and the course the deceased was pursuing, his monthly income has rightly been assessed as Rs.20,000/- per month as he would have got employment at a higher salary once he would have completed his engineering course. In Law Finder Doc Id # 2070735 titled ‘Mukesh Babu Bhardwaj and another Vs. Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd. and another’ cited by learned counsel for the appellant, the income of a B.Tech student was assessed as Rs.10,000/- per month, but in this case, the accident had taken place long ago and even the Special Leave Petition (for short ‘SLP’) was filed in the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the year 2019, which was disposed of on 22.09.2022. Taking into consideration the rise in the price index, the assessment of income of the deceased @ Rs.20,000/- per month cannot be termed as exaggerated or on the higher side. Even Class-IV (Peo