IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

207 Date of decision: 19.05.2026 SMT.SATYA KUMARI AND OTHERS ....Appellants Versus GURMAIL SINGH & ANR. ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHVIR SINGH RATHOR Present : Mr. Vijayveer Singh, Advocate and Mr. Paramveer Singh, Advocate for the appellant.

Mr. Vinod Gupta, Advocate for respondent No.2- Oriental Insurance Company.

YASHVIR SINGH RATHOR. J.(Oral)

1. This appeal has been instituted for enhancement of compensation against the Award dated 22.11.2000 awarded in MACT case No.69 of 1999 decided by the MACT, Ambala (for short “Tribunal”) in a petition under Section 166 and 163-A of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, vide which a sum of Rs.2,07,000/- has been awarded as compensation to the claimants alongwith interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of filing of claim petition till realization on account of death of Buta Ram in a motor vehicle accident.

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

“1) Whether the deceased Buta Ram died in a road side accident which was caused due to rash and negligent driving of truck bearing No.HNA-3614 being driven by its driver?OPP

2) If issue no.1 is proved in affirmative then to what amount of compensation the claimants are entitled to and from whom?OPP

3) Whether the respondent no.1 was not having valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident?OPR

4) Whether the Insurance Company is not liable?OPR

5) Relief”.

3. Thereafter, the parties led evidence in support of their case.

4. After hearing the parties and going through the material on the file, learned Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.2,07,000/- as compensation to the claimants alongwith interest @ 12% per annum from the date of filing of claim petition till realization.

5. Feeling aggrieved, the appeal in hand has been preferred. The material on file has been perused and parties have been heard.

6. 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 Registry and the present appeal has to be decided on the basis of the facts and evidence discussed by the Tribunal in the impugned Award.

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.1 that the accident had occurred due to the rash and negligent driving on the part of respondent No.1 while driving the offending truck bearing No.HNA-3614. 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.

8. Learned counsel for the appellants argued that the impugned award vide which compensation of Rs.2,07,000/- has been awarded is based on conjectures and surmises and is liable to be modified and enhanced amount of compensation should be awarded. Future prospects have also not been added to the monthly income of the deceased contrary to settled provisions of law. The compensation awarded towards conventional heads is also on the lower side and he prayed that same be suitably enhanced. In support of his contentions, learned counsel for the appellants has relied upon 2009(6) SCC 121 Sarla Verma and others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another, 2017 (16) SCC 680 National Insurance Co. Ltd Vs. Pranay Sethi and Other, 2018 (4) R.C.R. (Civil) 333 Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram alias Chuhru Ram & Others, (2021) 11 SCC 780 United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs.

Satinder Kaur.

9. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.2 argued that the award in question is well reasoned and justified. The material on file has been appreciated in the correct perspective while assessing the compensation and no interference in the same is thus called for.

10. The term `just compensation’ has been elaborated by Hon’ble S