227 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ****

FAO-4490-2003 Date of Decision:16.02.2026 SMT. KUSUM LATA AND OTHERS .....Appellants VERSUS RAJ PAL SINGH AND OTHERS .....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHVIR SINGH RATHOR Present:- Mr. Rohit Rana, Advocate for the appellants.

Mr. Hardeep Singh, Advocate for Mr. Ram Bilas Gupta, Advocate for respondents No.1 and 2.

Mr. Surender Singh Pannu, Advocate for respondent No.3-Insurance Company.

*****

Yashvir Singh Rathor, J. (Oral)

1. This appeal has been instituted against the Award dated 04.06.2003 for enhancement of compensation awarded in MACT case No.286 of 2000 decided by the MACT, Faridabad (for short “Tribunal”) in a petition under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 vide which a sum of Rs.3,07,072/- has been awarded as compensation to the claimants/appellants along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of claim petition till realization on account of death of Mukesh Kumar Sharma and the damage to scooter belonging to him in a motor vehicle accident.

2. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the material on record.

3. 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 Bus No.UP-81-B-4980, owned by respondent No.2 and insured with respondent No.3. 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.

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

“1. Whether the accident which took place on 3.6.2000 at about 9.40 A.M. near Nakeev Wala Pul, near Jungle of village Tappal, Distt. Aligarh (UP) on the road, was caused due to rash and negligent driving of Bus No.UP-81B/4980 being driven by Raj Pal Singh, respondent No.1 and which caused the death of Mukesh Kumar Sharma, if so its effect? OPP

2. If issue no.1 is proved, whether the claimants are entitled to claim compensation for the death of Mukesh Kumar Sharma, if so, how much and from whom? OPP

3. Whether the petitioners have got no locus standi and cause of action to file and maintain the present petition? OPR

4. Whether the petition is bad for non-joinder and mis-

joinder of parties? OPR

5. Whether the respondent no.1 was not having a valid and effect driving licence at the time of alleged accident?

OPR3.

6. 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.3,07,072/- as compensation to the claimants/appellants, on account of death of Mukesh Kumar Sharma and the damage to scooter belonging to him 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. At the very outset, it is pertinent to mention that the record of the appeal as well as the Tribunal has got burnt in a fire incident in the branch and the appeal in hand shall be decided as per facts and evidence mentioned in the award passed 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 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 empow