IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

217 Date of decision: 25.02.2026 KAMNI DEVI AND ORS ....Appellants Versus JAGTAR SINGH AND ORS ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHVIR SINGH RATHOR Present : Mr. Deepinder Singh Walia, Amicus Curiae for the appellants.

Mr. Varun Sharma, Advocate for respondent No.3 Insurance Company. YASHVIR SINGH RATHOR. J.(Oral)

1. This appeal has been instituted against the Award dated 03.05.2002 for enhancement of compensation awarded in MACT case No.27 of 1997 decided by the MACT, Ludhiana (for short “Tribunal”) in a petition under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 vide which a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- 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 Amit Kumar in a motor vehicle accident.

2. The matter is being taken up in the post lunch session.

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

1. Whether the petitioners are LRs of Amit Kumar deceased?

OPA

2. Whether Sh. Amit Kumar died in motor vehicular accident which took place on 03.08.1997 at about 3.30 P.M. in the area of Janta Nagar, Ludhiana caused due to rash and negligent driving of truck No.DL-1G-5149 by respondent Jagtar Singh? OPA

3. Whether the petitioners are entitled to recover any compensation if so the amount from whom of the respondents? OPA

4. Whether respondent No.1 was not having a valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident, if so its effect? OPA

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.2,00,000/- as compensation to the claimants/ appellants, on account of death of Amit Kumar along with interest @

9% 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. 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.2 that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving on the part of respondent No.1 while driving the offending truck No.DL-1G-5149, 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.2 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 asse