IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

225 FAO No.249 of 2003 (O&M)

Date of Decision:16.02.2026 LACHHMAN DASS .....APPELLANT VS.

JAN SINGH ETC. .....RESPONDENTS CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHVIR SINGH RATHOR Present:- Mr. Ajay Chaudhary, Advocate for the appellant.

Mr. Abhinav Kansal, Advocate for Mr. Paul S. Saini, Advocate for respondent No.3-NIC.

****

YASHVIR SINGH RATHOR, J. (ORAL)

1. This appeal has been instituted against the award dated 23.07.2002 for enhancement of compensation awarded in MACT Case No.150 of 1999, decided by MACT, Kurukshetra (for short ‘Tribunal’) in a petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 vide which a sum of ₹39,200/- has been awarded as compensation to the claimant/appellant-Lachhman Dass on account of injuries suffered by him in a motor vehicular accident caused by respondent No.1 while driving offending vehicle in a rash and negligent manner which was owned by respondent No.2 and insured with respondent No.3.

2. Mr. Abhinav Kansal, Advocate has appeared for Mr. Paul S. Saini, Advocate and filed his Memorandum of Appearance on behalf of respondent No.3-NIC.

3. The only issue required to be determined in the present appeal relates to assessment of compensation on account of the injuries suffered by Lachhman Das 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 learned 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.1-Jan Singh, while driving the offending vehicle bearing No.UP-14-C-9290, which was owned by respondent No.2-M/s Anand Nishikawa Company Ltd. and insured with respondent No.3-National Insurance Company Limited and the said finding has not been assailed by the respondents either by filing any appeal or cross-objections.

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

1. Whether the accident in question resulting into damage to Maruti car No.HR05C-0765, injuries to Lachhman Dass and Jan Singh was caused because of rash and negligent driving of Maruti car No.HR05C-0765 by its driver Lachhman Dass respondent No.1 or due to rash and negligent driving of Maruti van No.UP14C-9290 by its driver Jan Singh? OPP

2. If issue No.1 is proved, whether the claimants are entitled to compensation, if so to what amount and from whom?OPP

3. Whether the vehicles in question were being driven by the person without holding valid driving licenses? OPR

4. 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 ₹39,200/- as compensation to be paid by re- spondents No.1 to 3, jointly and severally, along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of his claim petition till its realization.

7. Feeling aggrieved, the appeal in hand has been preferred. The mate-

rial on file has been perused and parties have been heard.

8. It is pertinent to mention that the record of the present appeal and the Tribunal has got burnt in a fire incident in the High Court Branch and the present appeal has to be decided on the basis of the facts and evidence discussed by the Tribunal.

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 compen- sation 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 althou