S. No.128 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ****

FAO No.4495 of 2002 (O&M)

Date of Decision:25.02.2026 Sudha Rani .....Appellant Vs.

Lakhwinder Singh and others .....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHVIR SINGH RATHOR Present:- Mr. Sachin Jangra, Amicus Curiae for the appellant.

Mr. Harsh Aggarwal and Mr. Anshul Sharma, Advocates for respondent – Insurance Company.

****

Yashvir Singh Rathor, J. (Oral)

1. This appeal has been instituted against the Award dated 23.04.2001 for enhancement of compensation awarded in MACT case No.49 of 1998 decided by the MACT, Ambala (for short “Tribunal”) in a petition under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 vide which a sum of Rs.1,07,000/- has been awarded as compensation to the claimant/appellant alongwith interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of claim petition till realization on account of death of Beenu Raja in a motor vehicle accident.

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

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 the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of truck no.DIG-6619 by respondent No.1 resulting into death of Beenu Raja, as alleged?OPP

2. If issue No.1 is proved to what amount of compensation, the claimant is entitled to and from whom?OPP

3. Whether the insurance Co. is not liable to make any payment of compensation on account of the preliminary objections, taken by it in its written statement?OPR(3)

4. Whether the driver of the offending vehicle was not holding a valid driving licence?OPR

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.1,07,000/- as compensation to the claimant/ appellant, on account of death of Beenu Raja 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 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 truck No.DIG-9166, 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.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 can