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

FAO-5218-2003 (O&M)

Date of Decision:07.05.2026 SMT. KALA WATI AND OTHERS .....Appellants VERSUS CHAND @ MAHENDER SINGH AND OTHERS .....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHVIR SINGH RATHOR Present:- Mr. Ankit Kumar, Advocate for Mr. KDS Hooda, Advocate for the appellants.

Mr. D.K. Dogra, Advocate for respondent No.3- New India Assurance Co. Ltd.

****

YASHVIR SINGH RATHOR, J. (ORAL)

1. This appeal has been instituted against the Award dated 12.06.2003 for enhancement of compensation awarded in MACT Case No.93 of 2002 decided by the MACT, Panipat (for short “Tribunal”), in a petition under Sections 140 and 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 vide which a sum of Rs.9,37,743/- 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 Medh Singh @ Umed Singh in a motor vehicle accident.

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

“1. Whether the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of bus No.HR-45-0717 by respondent No.1? OPP

2. Whether the petitioners are entitled to compensation, if so, to what amount and from whom? OPP.

3. Whether the bus was being driven against the terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy? OPR.

4. 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.9,37,743/- as compensation to the claimants/appellants, on account of death of Medh Singh @ Umed Singh along with interest @ 9% 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 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 bus bearing No.HR-45-0717, 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.

8. Learned counsel for the appellants argued that the impugned award vide which compensation of Rs.9,37,743/- has been awarded is based on conjectures and surmises and is liable to be modified and enhanced amount of compensation should be awarded. Learned counsel contended that compensation awarded to the claimants has been assessed on lower side. Future prospects have also not been added to the monthly income of the deceased contrary to settled provisions of law. Learned counsel further contended that deceased was 43 years of age and multiplier of 12 has been applied whereas multiplier of 14 should have been applied. The compensation awarded towards loss of consortium, loss of estate and funeral expenses 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.