Just compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act must be fair, reasonable, and equitable based on evidence, rather than a windfall or source of profit; minor variations in the award do not justify appellate interference.

NIDHI GUPTA, J.

CM-18422-CII-2023

Prayer in this application filed under Section 151 CPC is for condonation of delay of 60 days in refiling the accompanying appeal.

2. Heard.

3. For the reasons mentioned in the application which is duly supported by an afÏdavit of the learned counsel for the applicant/appellants, the same is allowed and delay of 60 days in refiling the accompanying appeal is condoned.

CM-18423-CII-2023

Prayer in this application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act is for condonation of delay of 19 days in filing the accompanying appeal.

2. Heard.

3. For the reasons mentioned in the application which is duly supported by an afÏdavit of the applicant/appellant No.2, the same is allowed and delay of 19 days in filing the accompanying appeal is condoned.

FAO-5450-2023 (O&M)

1. The present appeal has been filed by the claimants seeking enhancement of compensation of Rs.8,38,339/- awarded by the learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Patiala (hereinafter referred to as “the learned Tribunal”) vide Award dated 02.02.2023 passed in MACP Case No. 128 dated 15.04.2021 filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”). The 3 claimants are the 55-year-old widow; 25-year-old son; and 83-year-old mother of the deceased Gurmel Singh, who was 58 years old at the time of accident.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the learned Tribunal on the basis of pleadings and evidence adduced before it concluded that the deceased- Gurmel Singh had died due to the injuries suffered by him in a motor vehicular accident that took place on 07.02.2021 at about 04:30 p.m. due to the rash and negligent driving of a Truck bearing registration No. PB-03-AZ/4097 (hereinafter referred to as “the offending vehicle”) being driven by respondent No.2; owned by respondent No.1; and insured by respondent No.3. The above said compensation was awarded along with interest @ 7% per annum. All the respondents were held jointly and severally liable to pay the amount of compensation.

3. Learned counsel for the appellants seeks enhancement of compensation by submitÝng that income of the deceased has been taken on the lower side as only Rs.9,192/- p.m. It is submitted that in taking income of the deceased as above, learned Tribunal has failed to appreciate that appellants had duly proved on record that deceased although working as labourer and was earning Rs.25,000/- p.m. Furthermore, nothing has been awarded towards filial and parental consortium.

4. It is accordingly prayed that the present Appeal be allowed; and the impugned Award be modified; and compensation be enhanced.

5. No other argument is raised on behalf of learned counsel for the appellants. I have heard learned counsel and perused the case file in detail. I find no merit in the submissions advanced on behalf of the appellants.

6. Perusal of the record of the case shows that it was the pleaded case of the appellants that prior to the accident, deceased was working as labourer and earning Rs.25,000/- p.m. However, no evidence whatsoever was produced by the claimants to support their said contention. In the absence of evidence, learned Tribunal had assessed income of the deceased as that of a labourer as Rs.9,192/- p.m. on the basis of relevant Minimum Wage Notification issued by State of Punjab. I find no error in the same.

7. Further, age of the deceased was determined to be 58 years old at the time of accident on the basis of the pleadings. Accordingly, future prospects of 10% were correctl