IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.3586 of 2019 (O & M)

Date of decision: -26.08.2025 Sukhpal Kaur and others …..Appellants Versus Inderjeet Singh and others …..Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA Present:- None for the appellants.

NIDHI GUPTA J. (Oral)

Present appeal has been filed by the appellants/claimants seeking enhancement of compensation of Rs.17,35,300/- awarded by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bathinda (hereinafter to be referred as ‘the learned Tribunal’) vide impugned Award dated 05.11.2018 passed in MAC File No.27 dated 01.8.2017, filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

Order sheets reveal that there has been no representation on behalf of appellants since the inception of the present Appeal. Today also there is no representation on behalf of appellants. Clearly, neither the appellant nor their counsel are seriously interested in pursuing the present Appeal. Accordingly, the appeal being of the year 2019 is being disposed of by this Court after perusing the case file and the record in minute detail.

Perusal of the Grounds of Appeal reveals that enhancement of compensation has been sought on the ground that income of the deceased has been taken on lower side as only Rs.10,000/- per month; and future prospects has been added only @ 40%. It is further averred that enhancement is made out in favour of the appellants in view of the fact that 1/4^th deduction ought to have been made whereas 1/3^rd has been made; and multiplier of 15 has been applied and the same deserves to be enhanced.

However, a perusal of the impugned Award reveals that it was the pleaded case of the appellants that the deceased was owner of the three-wheeler and used to ply the same on hire basis and used to earn Rs.20,000/- per month. Besides this the deceased was stated to be owning six acres of agricultural land from which he was stated to be earning Rs.50,000/- per month; and therefore, the total income of the deceased was Rs.70,000/- per month. However, the said alleged income of the deceased was not proved by the appellants as no income-tax return, no statement of account of any Bank, nor any other ledger entry pertaining to the deceased were brought on record to prove his income. Therefore, the learned Tribunal has accordingly taken the income of the deceased as Rs.10,000/- per month. I find no error in the same.

The age of the deceased is stated to be 39 years at the time of death. Therefore, addition of 40% towards future prospect has been correctly made; and multiplier of 15 has also been correctly applied. As the claimants are three in number, deduction of 1/3^rd is also correctly made. Learned Tribunal has further awarded Rs.55,000/- under the conventional heads.

From the above facts, it is clear that a very just and fair compensation has been awarded to the appellants. Nothing whatsoever has been shown to this Court that would merit enhancement of the compensation granted to the appellants. No doubt Chapter-12 of the Act is a beneficial legislation yet, as cautioned by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the same cannot be allowed to be treated as a windfall or a source of profit. Hon’ble Supreme Court in ‘State of Haryana & Another Vs. Jasbir Kaur & Others’ Law Finder Doc ID # 64043 and ‘Divisional Controller K.S.R.T.C. Vs. Mahadev Shetty’, (2003) 7 SCC 197, has held that the amount of compensation should be just and reasonable, it should neither be a bonanza nor a source of profit but at the same time it should not be a pittance. In my considered view, in the present case, the learned Tribunal has awarded a very ‘just’ compensation, which is in accordance with the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and therefore, does not warrant the interference of this Court. In the case of “General Manager, KSRTC Vs. Susamma Thomas & Others” 1994 Volume-II SCC 176, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that misplaced sympathy, generosity and benevolence cannot be the guiding factor for dete