Punjab-Haryana High Court
Ganesh Kumar & Ors vs Ramesh Kumar & Ors on 21 May, 2026
FAO No.3710 of 2005 &
connected matters -1-
S. No.102
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
****
Date of Decision:21.5.2026
1. FAO No.3710 of 2005
Krishan Lal Jain .....Appellant
Vs.
Ramesh Kumar and others .....Respondents
2. FAO No.3711 of 2005
Inderjeet Jain and others .....Appellants
Vs.
Ramesh Kumar and others .....Respondents
3. FAO No.3712 of 2005
Ganesh Kumar and others .....Appellants
Vs.
Ramesh Kumar and others .....Respondents
4. FAO No.3713 of 2005
Ganesh Kumar and others .....Appellants
Vs.
Ramesh Kumar and others .....Respondents
5. FAO No.3714 of 2005
Sanjeev Kumar Jain and another .....Appellants
Vs.
Ramesh Kumar and others .....Respondents
6. FAO No.3715 of 2005
Inderjit Jain .....Appellant
Vs.
Ramesh Kumar and others .....Respondents
7. FAO No.3716 of 2005
RENU
2026.05.21 18:52
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
Chandigarh
FAO No.3710 of 2005 &
connected matters -2-
Champa Lal Jain .....Appellant
Vs.
Ramesh Kumar and others .....Respondents
1. Judgment reserved on 19.05.2026
2. Judgment pronounced on 21.05.2026
3. Judgment uploaded on 21.05.2026
4. Whether only operative part of the judgment is Full
pronounced or whether the full judgment is
pronounced.
5. The delay, if any of the pronouncement is full Nil
judgment and reason thereof.
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHVIR SINGH RATHOR
Argued By:-Mr. Utsav Sharma, Advocate for
Mr. Sandeep K. Sharma, Advocate
for the appellants.
Mr. H.S. Gharoo, Advocate for
Mr. Amit Kumar Goyal, Advocate
for respondent- Insurance Company.
****
Yashvir Singh Rathor, J.
1. The afore-said appeals have been instituted for enhancement of
compensation against the common award dated 2.11.2004 passed by MACT,
Sirsa vide which claimants had sought compensation on account of death of Jagga
Singh, Kamlesh Rani, Chander Parkash, Sheela Rani, Manju Rani and Subha Sh.
Chand Jain and injuries suffered by claimants Inderjeet Jain, Krishan Lal, Baby
Mani and Chmpa Lal in a motor vehicular accident which allegedly took place on
19.10.2002 due to rash and negligent driving on the part of respondent No.1
while driving the offending vehicle bearing No.HR-39A/2165 (hereinafter
RENU
referred to as ‘offending vehicle’), which was insured with respondent No.3.
2026.05.21 18:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh FAO No.3710 of 2005 & connected matters -3-
Since all the appeals have arisen against the common award, the same are being
decided together by way of this judgment.
2. Following issues were framed in all the afore-said claim petitions by
the Tribunal:-
“1. Whether accident in question took place due to rash and
negligent driving of respondent no.1, as alleged?OPP.
2. Whether petitioners are entitled to recover compensation from
respondents as prayed for?
3. Whether petitions of petitioners are not maintainable?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 file,
learned Tribunal came to the conclusion that accident in question had taken place
on account of rash and negligent driving on the part of respondent No.1 while
driving the offending vehicle and Issue No.1 in all the claim petitions was
decided against the respondents. No appeal or cross objections have been filed by
the respondents in any of the appeal and the finding on Issue No.1 has not been
assailed by the respondents and same is accordingly affirmed.
5. Feeling aggrieved against grant of inadequate compensation, the
appeals in hand have been preferred. The material on file has been perused and
parties have been heard.
6. The only issue required to be determined in the present appeal relates
to the assessment of compensation. Therefore, the entire facts regarding the
RENU
2026.05.21 18:52
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
Chandigarh
FAO No.3710 of 2005 &
connected matters -4-
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 in question had taken place
due to rash and negligent driving of respondent No.1.
7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the
material placed on record.
8. Learned counsel for the appellants argued that the compensation
awarded by the learned Tribunal in all the petitions is grossly inadequate and the
settled principles of law with regard to assessment of compensation under various
heads have not been taken into consideration. The income of the deceased as well
as injured have been assessed on lower side. Future prospects have not been added
and proper multiplier has not been applied in the case of death of deceased
persons. Deduction has not been made properly towards personal expenses.
Besides this, no compensation for loss of consortium has been awarded. Nothing
has also been paid towards attendant charges, special diet and expenses incurred
in engaging an attendant in the case of injured claimants. Learned counsel lastly
contended that the Tribunal should have awarded compensation which appears to
be just and wide discretion vests in the Tribunal in the matter of determination of
compensation which is a beneficial legislation. While assessing compensation
under Motor Vehicles Act, it can neither be allowed to be used as a source of
profit nor as a windfall to the person affected nor should it be punitive to the
persons liable to pay compensation and the determination of compensation should
be based on certain data, establishing reasonable nexus between the loss incurred
by the victim or the dependants of the deceased and learned counsel prayed that
the compensation be adequately enhanced in all the appeals. In support of his
RENU
2026.05.21 18:52
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
Chandigarh
FAO No.3710 of 2005 &
connected matters -5-
contentions, learned counsel for the appellants has relied upon 2014 (1) RCR
(Civil) 914 Sanjay Verma Vs. Haryana Roadways, 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 and (2021) 11 SCC 780 United India Insurance Co.
Ltd. Vs. Satinder Kaur.
9. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondents argued that
adequate compensation has been awarded after taking into consideration the
material on file. The award in question does not suffer from any material
ambiguity and same does not call for any interference and learned counsel prayed
that appeals in hand be dismissed.
10. Compensation in FAO No.3710 of 2005
“Krishan Lal Jain Vs. Ramesh Kumar and others”:
Claim Petition No.4 of 2003 has been instituted by claimant –
Krishan Lal Jain (injured). As per version of claimant – appellant- Krishan Lal
Jain, he had retired as Patwari from Canal Department and had opened his office
at Rania providing specialised services to the farmers with regard to their issues
with the Canal Department and he used to earn Rs.5,000/- per month. However,
due to the injuries suffered by him, he has become permanently disabled.
11. The Tribunal after going through the material placed on file awarded
him a total compensation of Rs.61,920/- and held as under:-
“In petition “Krishan Lal Versus Ramesh Kumar etc.”, petitioner
sought compensation for permanent disability/ injuries suffered by
RENU
2026.05.21 18:52
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
Chandigarh
FAO No.3710 of 2005 &
connected matters -6-him in the accident. No cogent proof of income of petitioners
available on record. Accordingly, monthly income of petitioner is to
be assessed at Rs.2000/- per month considering the monthly income
of a daily wages labourer. Annual income of petitioner would come
to Rs.24,000/- only. As per Disability Certificate (Ex.PW8/A),
petitioner suffered 30% disability in the accident. This disability
would reduce the earning capacity of petitioner by atleast 25%.
Annual loss of wages to petitioner would, thus, be Rs.6000/- only.
The petitioner was of 58 years of age at the time of accident.
Therefore, a multiplier of six would apply. Applying a multiplier of
six, total loss of income due to disability comes to Rs.36,000/- only.
Medical bills Ex.PW9/39 to Ex.PW9/49 show that petitioner incurred
Rs.25920/- as his medical expenses due to this accident. Thus, total
compensation payable to petitioner comes to Rs.61920/- only.
12. However, in my considered opinion, adequate compensation has not
been assessed under pecuniary and non-pecuniary heads as per the settled law.
The law is well settled that the compensation to be awarded for injuries suffered
by victim in a motor vehicular accident should be just and equitable. Courts have
consistently held that while money cannot erase the pain, suffering, or trauma but
it is the only legal means to provide restitution and restore the victim to his
previous position as far as possible for which ‘just compensation’ has to be
assessed. It is also well settled that while it is impossible to fully compensate for
the loss of limb, life, or quality of life, the compensation must be ‘Just’, meaning
thereby, that it should be fair, reasonable, and equitable based on the evidence and
RENU
2026.05.21 18:52
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
Chandigarh
FAO No.3710 of 2005 &
connected matters -7-
not merely a ‘Windfall’ or a ‘Pittance’. The core objective is to put the
injured/victim in the same position he would have been if the accident had not
taken place, to the extent money can do so. This approach ensures that the law
provides a realistic recompense for the trauma endured, rather than just providing
normal relief.
13. Besides this, Hon’ble Supreme Court in 2013 (3) RCR (Civil) 934 –
G.Ravindranath @ R. Chowdary Vs. E. Srinivas and another, has held that in
a case of accident resulting in injuries to the victim, the compensation in personal
injury cases should be determined under the following heads:-
Pecuniary damages (Special damages)
(i) Expenses relating to treatment, hospitalization, medicines,
transportation, nourishing expenditure. food and miscellaneous
(ii) Loss of earnings (and other gains) which the injured would have made
had he not been injured, comprising:
(a) Loss of earning during the period of treatment;
(b) Loss of future earnings on account of permanent disability
(iii) Future medical expenses.
Non-pecuniary damages (General damages)
(iv) Damages for pain, suffering and trauma as a consequence of the
injuries.
(v) Loss of amenities (and/or loss of prospects of marriage).
(vi) Loss of expectation of life (shortening of normal longevity).
In routine personal injury cases, compensation will be awarded under heads
(i), (ii) (a) and (iv). It is only in serious cases of injury, where there is specific
RENU
2026.05.21 18:52
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
Chandigarh
FAO No.3710 of 2005 &
connected matters -8-
medical evidence corroborating the evidence of the claimant that compensation
will be granted under any of the heads (ii) (b), (iii), (v) and (vi) relating to loss of
future earnings on account of permanent disability, future medical expenses, loss
of amenities (and/or loss of prospects of marriage) and loss of expectation of life.
14. Coming to the facts of the case in hand, the Tribunal has assessed the
monthly income of the claimant to be Rs.2,000/- per month. However, the
accident had taken place on 19.10.2002 and during those days, even the labourers
used to earn around Rs.3,000/- per month as per the minimum wages and some
amount of guess work thus has to be applied while assessing the income of
claimant who was doing consultancy work. Accordingly, income of the claimant
is taken as Rs.3,000/- per month.
15. Claimant was 58 years of age but no future prospectus have been
added to his monthly income and in view of law laid down in Pranay Sethi‘s case
(supra), 10% amount has to be added towards future prospects which brings his
monthly income to Rs.3,300/- per month (Rs.3,000/- + Rs.300/-).
16. To prove the injuries suffered by him, claimant has examined PW9
Dr. Vijay Kumar Jaiswal. He deposed that patient had suffered head injury, eye
injury and facial injury. Left eye of claimant was operated upon by Dr. Jaswant
Rai Bansal in his hospital and certificate Ex.PW9/37 was issued by Dr. Jaswant
Rai Bansal and he identified his certificate. He further stated that he has seen
discharge certificate issued by his team Ex.PW9/38 which bears signatures of Dr.
M.C. Verma, who was member of the team.
17. In addition to this, claimant has also examined PW8 Dr. C.P.Dadhich,
Medical Officer, Civil Hospital, Sirsa, who deposed that on 13.11.2002, Board of
RENU
2026.05.21 18:52
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
Chandigarh
FAO No.3710 of 2005 &
connected matters -9-
Doctors, constituted by Civil Surgeon, Sirsa, examined Krishan Lal, claimant and
he was also member of the Board. The claimant was having phthisis bulbi left eye
and vision was nil and the Board assessed his permanent disability at 30% vide
certificate Ex.PW8/A which bears his signatures as well as signatures of other
members of the Board. As such, from the evidence led by the claimant, it is
established that he had suffered facial injuries, head injury and injury in his eye.
He was operated upon and he lost vision of one eye and his disability has been
assessed at 30%. The Tribunal has not awarded any compensation on account of
Pain and Sufferings and in view of the severity of injuries, the claimant is held
entitled to a sum of Rs.40,000/- on account of Pain and Sufferings.
18. It must have taken at least three months for the injuries to heal and
during this period, claimant would not have been able to do any work and must
have suffered loss of income and he is held entitled to a sum of Rs.9,000/-
(Rs.3,000/- X 3) on account of loss of Income during the period of treatment.
19. Likewise during this period, he must have engaged an attendant and
he is held entitled to a sum of Rs.5,000/- for engaging an attendant. He is also
held entitled to a sum of Rs.5,000/- for the expenses incurred on transportation
and another sum of Rs.5,000/- on account of special nourishment.
20. As already discussed above, the claimant has lost his one eye and his
disability has been assessed as 30% on this account. As per his version, he had
retired as a Patwari and used to render services to the farmers in respect to their
problems with the Canal Department and used to earn Rs.5,000/- per month.
However, his income has been held to be Rs.3,000/- per month. No doubt, he
RENU
2026.05.21 18:52
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
Chandigarh
FAO No.3710 of 2005 &
connected matters -10-
would be able to carry on his avocation with one eye but his efficacy would
certainly be compromised owing to excess strain to be suffered by the other eye
and the disability will thus certainly diminish his earning capability and in these
circumstances, the compensation for loss of income due to permanent disability
has to be assessed keeping in view law laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in
2010(4) PLR 242- Yadava Kumar Vs. The Divisional Manager, National
Insurance Company Limited.
21. The monthly loss of income due to permanent disability will thus
come to Rs.990/- (Rs.3,300/- X 30%) and ‘annual loss of income’ will come out
to Rs.11,880/- per annum (i.e. Rs.990/- X 12).
22. The claimant was 58 years of age and in view of law laid down in
Pranay Sethi‘s case (supra), the multiplier of 9 has to be applied which takes the
compensation to Rs.1,06,920/- (Rs.11,880/- X 9) on account of ‘loss of income’
due to permanent disability.
23. The claimant has suffered injuries and has lost one eye and no
amount had been awarded towards loss of amenities and he is accordingly held
entitled to a sum of Rs.20,000/- on account of loss of amenities.
24. The Tribunal has also awarded a sum of Rs.25,920/- on account of
expenses incurred on treatment as per bills produced by claimant. No interference
in the same is called for.
25. Resultantly, the compensation to be awarded by this Court is assessed
as under:-
RENU
2026.05.21 18:52
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
Chandigarh
FAO No.3710 of 2005 &
connected matters -11-
Sr. No. Head This Court (₹)
1. Age of the deceased 58 years
2. Monthly income of deceased Rs.3,000/-
3. Future Prospects @ 10% Rs.300/-
4. Annual Loss of Income Rs.11,880/-
5. Multiplier 9
6. Compensation for Loss of income Rs.1,06,920/-
7. Pain and Sufferings Rs.40,000/-
8. Loss of income during the period Rs.9,000/-
of treatment
9. For engaging an attendant, Rs.15,000/-
Expenses incurred on transporta- (Rs.5,000/- each un-
tion and for special nourishment der each head)
10. Expenses incurred on treatment as Rs.25,920/-
per bills awarded by Tribunal
11. Loss of Amenities Rs.20,000/-
Total Rs.2,16,840/-
Interest 9%
26. As a result of afore-said discussion, the present appeal is partly al-
lowed with costs and the claimant is held entitled to enhanced compensation of
Rs.1,54,920/- (Rs.2,16,840/- – Rs.61,920/-) (Rounded off to Rs.1,55,000/-) over
and above the compensation awarded by Tribunal, payable by respondents No.1 to
3 jointly and severally, along with interest @ 9% per annum, from the date of fil-
ing of claim petition i.e. 10.1.2003, till realization.
27. Compensation in FAO No.3711 of 2005
“Inderjeet Jain and others Vs. Ramesh Kumar and others”:-
Claim Petition No.5/2003 has been instituted by claimants – Inderjeet
Jain, Ravish Kumar, Puneet Kumar, Ranju Bala and Bindu Bala (husband and
RENU
2026.05.21 18:52
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
Chandigarh
FAO No.3710 of 2005 &
connected matters -12-children of deceased- Kamlesh Rani). As per version of claimants, deceased-
Kamlesh Rani was a housewife and was 47 years of age.
28. Learned Tribunal after going through the material on file assessed the
notional income of deceased to be Rs.15,000/- per annum. One third of her
income was deducted on account of personal expenses and annual loss of income
came to Rs.10,000/-. Relying upon post-mortem report Ex. P7, her age was
accordingly taken as 47 years and multiplier of 10 was applied and a sum of
Rs.1,00,000/- was assessed as compensation. A sum of Rs.5,000/- was awarded
for loss of consortium and Rs.2,000/- was awarded towards funeral expenses and
in all, a sum of Rs.1,07,000/- was awarded as compensation. However, the
compensation awarded by the Tribunal on account of death of a housewife is
grossly inadequate.
29. 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 empower
the Tribunal to determine the compensation arbitrarily, or to ignore settled
principles relating to determination of compensation. It has been further held that
although the Act is a beneficial legislation, it can neither be allowed to be used as
a source of profit, nor as a windfall to the persons affected nor should it be
punitive to the persons liable to pay compensation and that determination of
RENU
2026.05.21 18:52
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
Chandigarh
FAO No.3710 of 2005 &
connected matters -13-compensation must be based on certain data establishing reasonable nexus
between the loss incurred by the victim or dependents. It has been further held that
misplaced sympathy, generosity and benevolence cannot be the guiding factors for
determining the compensation. As such, compensation is required to be assessed
by taking into consideration above-said parameters.
30. Deceased was a housewife and she also used to assist her husband
and children in preparation of sweets which used to be sold. However, the
Tribunal has assessed the notional income to be Rs.15,000/- per annum only but
the approach of the Tribunal is highly erroneous. This Court cannot lose sight of
the fact that deceased must have been rendering gratuitous services to the
claimants being their wife and mother and she thus has to be treated as a home-
maker. Hon’ble Supreme Court in AIR 2021 (SC) 353, titled Kirti Vs. Oriental
Insurance Co. Ltd. has held that the income of a home-maker should at least be
assessed by adopting the lowest minimum wages applicable for unskilled workers.
Future prospects too have to be applied, while assessing the monthly income and
amount incurred on personal expenses also has to be deducted. It has been further
held that in view of totality of circumstances and contribution of a housewife
towards household, 25% additional gratuitous income should be added towards
salary. The accident had taken place on 19.10.2002 and during those days, even
the labourers used to earn around Rs.3,000/- per month which were the minimum
wages and accordingly, the income of deceased is taken as Rs.3,000/- per month.
31. Deceased was 47 years of age and as such, 25% amount has to be
added to the monthly income of the deceased towards future prospects in view of
RENU
2026.05.21 18:52
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
Chandigarh
FAO No.3710 of 2005 &
connected matters -14-
law laid down in Sarla Verma’s case (supra) and Pranay Sethi‘s case
(supra),which takes her income to Rs.3,750/- per month (Rs.3,000/- + Rs.750/-).
32. In view of law laid down in Kirti‘s case (supra), 25% additional
amount has to be added on account of gratuitous services being rendered by the
deceased and after adding the same, the monthly income of deceased comes out to
Rs.4687.5 per month and Rs.56,250/- (Rs.4687.5 X 12) per annum.
33. Deceased has left behind five dependents and as such, 1/4th of the
income has to be deducted towards personal and living expenses and after
deducting the same, the annual loss of dependency comes out to Rs.42,187.5
(Rs.56,250/- – Rs.14,062.5) (Rounded off to Rs.42,188/-).
34. Deceased was 47 years of age and as such multiplier of 13 has to be
applied as per Sarla Verma’s case (supra), and after applying the same, the
compensation comes to Rs.5,48,444/- (Rs.42,188 X 13).
35. In addition to this, claimant No.1 is held entitled to a sum of
Rs.70,000/- under conventional heads i.e. Rs.40,000/- towards ‘loss of
consortium’, Rs.15,000/- towards ‘loss of estate’ and Rs.15,000/- on account of
‘funeral expenses’, as per law laid down in Pranay Sethi‘s case (supra).
Likewise, remaining claimants No.2 to 5 who are sons and daughters of deceased
are also held entitled to a sum of Rs.40,000/- each on account of ‘loss of parental
consortium’, in view of law laid down in Nanu Ram‘s case (supra) and
Satinder Kaur’s case (supra), which takes the compensation to Rs.7,78,444/-
(Rs.5,48,444/- + Rs.70,000/- + Rs.1,60,000/-).
RENU 2026.05.21 18:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh FAO No.3710 of 2005 & connected matters -15- 36. Accordingly, the compensation to be awarded to the appellants/claimants is assessed as under:- S.No. Under Head Compensation awarded by the High Court 1. Monthly income of deceased Rs.3,000/- per month 2. Age of deceased 47 years 3. Future prospects @ 25% Rs.750/- (As per Pranay Sethi's case supra) Rs.3,750/- per month 4. For gratuitous services @ 25% Rs.937.5 (As per Kirti's case (supra) Rs.4687.5 4. Total Annual income Rs.4687.5 X 12 Rs.56,250/- per annum 5. Number of dependents 5 6. Deduction towards personal Rs.14,062.5 expenses of the deceased (1/4th) 7. Annual loss of dependency Rs.42,188/- 8. Multiplier 13 9. Compensation on account of Loss Rs.5,48,444/- of dependency 10. Compensation under conventional Rs.70,000/- heads 11. Consortium to children of Rs.1,60,000/- deceased (Rs.40,000/- each) Total Compensation Rs.7,78,444/- (Rounded off to Rs.7,78,500/-) Interest 9%
37. Resultantly, the appeal in hand is partly accepted with costs and
appellants/claimants are held entitled to a sum of Rs.7,78,500/- as compensation.
RENU 2026.05.21 18:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh FAO No.3710 of 2005 & connected matters -16-
The enhanced compensation thus comes out to Rs.6,71,500/- (Rs.7,78,500/- –
Rs.1,07,000/-) over and above the compensation awarded by the Tribunal payable
alongwith interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of claim
petition i.e. 10.1.2003, till realization payable by respondents No.1 to 3 jointly and
severally. Out of the enhanced compensation, a sum of Rs.50,000/- each be paid to
children of the deceased while remaining amount be paid to husband alongwith
proportionate interest.
38. Compensation in FAO No.3712 of 2005
“Ganesh Kumar and others Vs. Ramesh Kumar and others “:-
Claim Petition No.6/2003 has been instituted by claimants – Ganesh
Kumar, Naresh Kumar, Mukesh Kumar and Mamta Rani (children of deceased-
Chander Parkash). As per version of claimants, deceased-Chander Parkash was
52 years of age.
39. Learned Tribunal after going through the material on file assessed the
income of deceased to be Rs.2,000/- per month considering the monthly income
of a daily wage labourer. The annual income of deceased was assessed as
Rs.24,000/-. One third of his income was deducted on account of personal
expenses and annual loss of income came to Rs.16,000/-. His age was held to be
52 years and multiplier of 8 was applied and a sum of Rs.1,28,000/- was assessed
as compensation. A sum of Rs.2,000/- was added for funeral expenses and in all,
a sum of Rs.1,30,000/- was awarded as compensation.
40. As per version of claimants, deceased – Chander Parkash was a
karyana merchant and used to sell `gachak’, sweets, patasha etc.in the market,
alongwith the claimants. The products used to be prepared at their house in which
RENU
2026.05.21 18:52
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
Chandigarh
FAO No.3710 of 2005 &
connected matters -17-
their mother Sheela Devi, who also died in the same accident also used to
contribute. He deposed that deceased used to earn Rs.10,000/- per month and was
having good health. After his death, their business has been adversely affected.
41. However, deceased was running his own business alongwith his sons
and wife and he thus could not have been treated as a daily wager. The accident
had taken place on 19.10.2002. Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.6152
of 2021 – Chandra alias Chander alias Chanda Ram and another Vs. Mukesh
Kumar Yadav, decided vide judgment dated 01.10.2021 has held that merely
because claimants are unable to produce documentary evidence to show the
monthly income of the deceased is not a ground to discard the oral evidence. As
such, some amount of guess work has to be applied while assessing the income.
Accordingly, income of the deceased is taken as Rs.3,000/- per month as he was
running business of sale of sweets.
42. No future prospects have been added to the monthly income of the
deceased by the Tribunal. Deceased was 52 years of age and as such, 10%
amount has to be added to the monthly income of the deceased towards future
prospects in view of law laid down in Pranay Sethi‘s case (supra),which takes
his income to Rs.3,000/- per month (Rs.3,000/- + Rs.300/-).
43. The petition in hand has been instituted by children of the deceased.
Accordingly, it is held that deceased has left behind 4 dependents and 1/4th of the
income thus has to be deducted towards personal and living expenses. After
deducting a sum of Rs.825/- towards personal expenses, the monthly loss of
dependency comes out to Rs.2475/- (Rs.3300/- – Rs.825/-) and the annual loss of
dependency comes out to Rs.29,700/- per annum (Rs.2,475/- X 12).
RENU 2026.05.21 18:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh FAO No.3710 of 2005 & connected matters -18-
44. As per guidelines laid down in Sarla Verma’s case (supra),
multiplier of 11 has to be applied as deceased was 52 years of age and after
applying the same, the loss of dependency comes to Rs.3,26,700/- (Rs.29,700/- X
11).
45. In addition to this, claimants are held entitled to a sum of
Rs.15,000/- towards ‘loss of estate’ and Rs.15,000/- on account of ‘funeral
expenses’, as per law laid down in Pranay Sethi‘s case (supra). Likewise,
claimants who are children of deceased are also held entitled to a sum of
Rs.40,000/- each on account of ‘loss of parental consortium’, in view of law
laid down in Nanu Ram‘s case (supra) and Satinder Kaur’s case (supra),
which takes the compensation to Rs.5,16,700/- (Rs.3,26,700/- + Rs.15,000/- +
Rs.15,000/- + Rs.1,60,000/- (Rs.40,000/- X 4). /-.
46. Accordingly, the compensation to be awarded to the
appellants/claimants is assessed as under:-
S.No. Under Head Compensation awarded by
the High Court
1. Monthly income of deceased Rs.3,000/- per month
2. Age of deceased 52 years
3. Future prospects @ 10% Rs.300/-
4. Total income after adding future Rs.3,300/-
prospects
5. Number of dependents 4
6. Deduction towards personal Rs.825/-
expenses of the deceased (1/4th)
7. Monthly loss of dependency Rs.2,475/-
7. Annual loss of dependency Rs.29,700 /-
(Rs. 2,475/-- X 12)
RENU
8. Multiplier 11
2026.05.21 18:52
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
Chandigarh
FAO No.3710 of 2005 &
connected matters -19-
9. Compensation on account of Loss Rs.3,26,700/-
of dependency
10. Compensation for loss of estate Rs.30,000/-
and (Rs.15,000/- + Rs.15,000/-)
funeral expenses
11. Parental Consortium (Four chil- Rs.1,60,000/-
dren @ Rs.40,000/- each)
Total Compensation Rs.5,16,700/-
Interest 9%
47. Resultantly, the appeal in hand is partly accepted with costs and
appellants/claimants are held entitled to a sum of Rs.5,16,700/- as compensation.
The enhanced compensation thus comes out to Rs.3,86,700/- (Rs.5,16,700/- –
Rs.1,30,000/-) over and above the compensation awarded by the Tribunal payable
alongwith interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of claim
petition i.e. 10.1.2003, till realization payable by respondents No.1 to 3 jointly and
severally. The entire amount shall be shared equally by the appellants.
48. Compensation in FAO No.3713 of 2005
“Ganesh Kumar and others Vs. Ramesh Kumar and others”:-
Claim Petition No.7/2003 has been instituted by claimants – Ganesh
Kumar, Naresh Kumar, Mukesh Kumar and Mamta Rani (children of deceased-
Sheela Devi). As per version of claimants, deceased-Sheela Devi was 50 years of
age. The claimants alongwith their father were running their own business and
used to sell gachak, sweets, patasha etc.in the market. The products used to be
prepared at their house in which their mother, deceased- Sheela Devi, also used to
contribute.
RENU 2026.05.21 18:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh FAO No.3710 of 2005 & connected matters -20-
49. Learned Tribunal after going through the material on file assessed the
notional income of deceased to be Rs.15,000/- per annum. One third of her
income was deducted on account of personal expenses and annual loss of income
came to Rs.10,000/-. Her age was 50 years and multiplier of 8 was applied and a
sum of Rs.80,000/- was assessed as compensation. A sum of Rs.2,000/- was added
towards funeral expenses and in all, a sum of Rs.82,000/- was awarded as
compensation.
50. Deceased was a housewife and she also used to assist her husband
and children in preparation of sweets which used to be sold. However, the
Tribunal has assessed her notional income to be Rs.15,000/- per annum only but
the approach of the Tribunal is highly erroneous. This Court cannot lose sight of
the fact that deceased must have been rendering gratuitous services to the
claimants being their wife and mother and she thus has to be treated as a home-
maker. Hon’ble Supreme Court in AIR 2021 (SC) 353, titled Kirti Vs. Oriental
Insurance Co. Ltd. has held that the income of a home-maker should at least be
assessed by adopting the lowest minimum wages applicable for unskilled workers.
Future prospects too have to be applied, while assessing the monthly income and
amount incurred on personal expenses also has to be deducted. It has been further
held that in view of totality of circumstances and contribution of a housewife
towards household, 25% additional gratuitous income should be added towards
salary. The accident had taken place on 19.10.2002 and during those days, even
the labourers used to earn around Rs.3,000/- per month which were the minimum
wages and accordingly, the income of deceased is taken as Rs.3,000/- per month.
RENU 2026.05.21 18:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh FAO No.3710 of 2005 & connected matters -21-
51. Deceased was 50 years of age and as such, 25% amount has to be
added to the monthly income of the deceased towards future prospects in view of
law laid down in Sarla Verma’s case (supra) and Pranay Sethi‘s case
(supra),which takes her income to Rs.3,750/- per month (Rs.3,000/- + Rs.750/-).
52. In view of law laid down in Kirti‘s case (supra), 25% additional
amount has to be added on account of gratuitous services being rendered by the
deceased and after adding the same, the monthly income of deceased comes out to
Rs.4687.5 per month and Rs.56,250/- (Rs.4687.5 X 12) per annum.
53. Deceased has left behind four dependents and as such, 1/4th of the
income has to be deducted towards personal and living expenses and after
deducting the same, the annual loss of dependency comes out to Rs.42,187.5
(Rs.56,250/- – Rs.14,062.5) (Rounded off to Rs.42,188/-).
54. Deceased was 50 years of age and as such multiplier of 13 has to be
applied as per Sarla Verma’s case (supra), and after applying the same, the loss of
dependency comes to Rs.5,48,444/- (Rs.42,188 X 13).
55. In addition to this, claimants are held entitled to a sum of
Rs.15,000/- towards ‘loss of estate’ and Rs.15,000/- on account of ‘funeral
expenses’, as per law laid down in Pranay Sethi‘s case (supra). Likewise,
claimants who are children of deceased are also held entitled to a sum of
Rs.40,000/- each on account of ‘loss of parental consortium’, in view of law
laid down in Nanu Ram‘s case (supra) and Satinder Kaur’s case (supra),
which takes the compensation to Rs.7,38,444/- (Rs.5,48,444/- + Rs.15,000/- +
Rs.15,000/- + Rs.1,60,000/- (Rs.40,000/- X 4).
RENU 2026.05.21 18:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh FAO No.3710 of 2005 & connected matters -22- 56. Accordingly, the compensation to be awarded to the appellants/claimants is assessed as under:- S.No. Under Head Compensation awarded by the High Court 1. Monthly income of deceased Rs.3,000/- per month 2. Age of deceased 50 years 3. Future prospects @ 25% Rs.750/- (As per Pranay Sethi's case supra) Rs.3,750/- per month 4. Gratuitous income @ 25% Rs.937.5 (As per Kirti's case (supra) Rs.4687.5 4. Total Annual income Rs.4687.5 X 12 Rs.56,250/- per annum 5. Number of dependents 4 6. Deduction towards personal Rs.14,062.5 expenses of the deceased (1/4th) 7. Annual loss of dependency Rs.42,188/- 8. Multiplier 13 9. Compensation on account of Loss Rs.5,48,444/- of dependency 10. Compensation for loss of estate Rs.30,000/- and funeral expenses 11. Parental Consortium (Four chil- Rs.1,60,000/- dren @ Rs.40,000/- each) (Rs.40,000/- each) Total Compensation Rs.7,38,000/- Interest 9%
57. Resultantly, the appeal in hand is partly accepted with costs and
appellants/claimants are held entitled to a sum of Rs.7,38,000/- as compensation.
RENU
The enhanced compensation thus comes out to Rs.6,56,000/- (Rs.7,38,000/- –
2026.05.21 18:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh FAO No.3710 of 2005 & connected matters -23-
Rs.82,000/-) over and above the compensation awarded by the Tribunal payable
alongwith interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of claim
petition i.e. 10.1.2003, till realization payable by respondents No.1 to 3 jointly and
severally. The entire amount shall be shared equally by the appellants.
58. Compensation in FAO No.3714 of 2005
“Sanjeev Kumar Jain and anr. Vs. Ramesh Kumar and others”:-
Claim Petition No.8/2003 has been instituted by claimants – Sanjeev
Kumar and Baby Mani Jain (husband and daughter of Manju Rani). As per
version of claimants, deceased-Manju Rani was 30 years of age, who was a
housewife.
59. Learned Tribunal after going through the material on file assessed the
notional income of deceased to be Rs.15,000/- per annum. One third of her
income was reduced on account of personal expenses and annual loss of income
came to Rs.10,000/-. Her age was 30 years and multiplier of 16 was applied and a
sum of Rs.1,60,000/- was assessed as compensation. A sum of Rs.5,000/- was
added towards loss of consortium and Rs.2,000/- was added towards funeral
expenses and in all, a sum of Rs.1,67,000/- was awarded as compensation.
60. Deceased was a housewife. However, the Tribunal has assessed her
notional income to be Rs.15,000/- per annum only but the approach of the
Tribunal is highly erroneous. This Court cannot lose sight of the fact that
deceased must have been rendering gratuitous services to the claimants being their
wife and mother and she thus has to be treated as a home-maker. Hon’ble
Supreme Court in AIR 2021 (SC) 353, titled Kirti Vs. Oriental Insurance Co.
Ltd. has held that the income of a home-maker should at least be assessed by
RENU
2026.05.21 18:52
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
Chandigarh
FAO No.3710 of 2005 &
connected matters -24-
adopting the lowest minimum wages applicable for unskilled workers. Future
prospects too have to be applied, while assessing the monthly income and amount
incurred on personal expenses also has to be deducted. It has been further held
that in view of totality of circumstances and contribution of a housewife towards
household, 25% additional gratuitous income should be added towards salary. The
accident had taken place on 19.10.2002 and during those days, even the labourers
used to earn around Rs.3,000/- per month which were the minimum wages and
accordingly, the income of deceased is taken as Rs.3,000/- per month.
61. Deceased was 30 years of age and as such, 40% amount has to be
added to the monthly income of the deceased towards future prospects in view of
law laid down in Sarla Verma’s case (supra) and Pranay Sethi‘s case
(supra),which takes her income to Rs.4,200/- per month (Rs.3,000/- +
Rs.1,200/-).
62. In view of law laid down in Kirti‘s case (supra), 25% additional
amount has to be added on account of gratuitous services being rendered by the
deceased and after adding the same, the monthly income of deceased comes out to
Rs.5,250/- per month and Rs.63,000/- (Rs.5,250/- X 12) per annum.
63. Deceased has left behind two dependents and as such, 1/3rd of the
income has to be deducted towards personal and living expenses and after
deducting the same, the annual loss of dependency comes out to Rs.42,000/-
(Rs.63,000/- – Rs.21,000/-).
64. Deceased was 30 years of age and as such multiplier of 17 has to be
applied as per Sarla Verma’s case (supra), and after applying the same, the loss of
RENU
dependency comes to Rs.7,14,000/- (Rs.42,000/- X 17).
2026.05.21 18:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh FAO No.3710 of 2005 & connected matters -25-
65. In addition to this, claimant No.1 is held entitled to a sum of
Rs.70,000/- under conventional heads i.e. Rs.40,000/- towards ‘loss of
consortium’, Rs.15,000/- towards ‘loss of estate’ and Rs.15,000/- on account of
‘funeral expenses’, as per law laid down in Pranay Sethi‘s case (supra).
Likewise, claimant No.2 who is minor daughter of deceased is also held entitled to
a sum of Rs.40,000/- on account of ‘loss of parental consortium’, in view of law
laid down in Nanu Ram‘s case (supra) and Satinder Kaur’s case (supra),
which takes the compensation to Rs.8,24,000/- (Rs.7,14,000/- + Rs.70,000/- +
Rs.40,000/-).
66. Accordingly, the compensation to be awarded to the
appellants/claimants is assessed as under:-
S.No. Under Head Compensation awarded by the High Court 1. Monthly income of deceased Rs.3,000/- per month 2. Age of deceased 30 years 3. Future prospects @ 40% Rs.1200/- (As per Pranay Sethi's case supra) Rs.4,200/- per month 4. Gratuitous income @ 25% Rs.1,050/- per month (As per Kirti's case (supra) Rs.5,250/- per month 4. Total Annual income Rs.5,250/- X 12 Rs.63,000/- per annum 5. Number of dependents 2 6. Deduction towards personal Rs.21,000/- expenses of the deceased (1/3rd 7. Annual loss of dependency Rs.42,000/- 8. Multiplier 17 9. Compensation on account of Loss Rs.7,14,000/- of dependency RENU 2026.05.21 18:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh FAO No.3710 of 2005 & connected matters -26- 10. Compensation under conventional Rs.70,000/- heads 11. Consortium to daughter of Rs.40,000/- deceased Total Compensation Rs.8,24,000/- Interest 9%
67. Resultantly, the appeal in hand is partly accepted with costs and
appellants/claimants are held entitled to a sum of Rs.8,24,000/- as compensation.
The enhanced compensation thus comes out to Rs.6,57,000/- (Rs.8,24,000/- –
Rs.1,67,000/-) over and above the compensation awarded by the Tribunal payable
alongwith interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of claim
petition i.e. 10.1.2003, till realization payable by respondents No.1 to 3 jointly and
severally. The entire amount shall be shared equally among the appellants.
68. Compensation in FAO No.3715 of 2005
“Inderjit Jain Vs. Ramesh Kumar and others”:
Claim Petition No.9 of 2003 has been instituted by claimant – Inderjit
Jain (injured). As per version of injured- claimant – Inderjit Jain, he had suffered
multiple injuries including permanent disability on account of injuries suffered by
him in the accident. He suffered injuries on his head, left ear and multiple
lacerated wound on the skull. His left ear was torn apart. Head injury caused a
serious oedema affecting the mental faculty of the deponent and his behaviour
abnormally changed on account of the head injury. He was initially treated at
Civil Hospital, Hansi from where he was shifted to CMC, Hisar and he remained
admitted there for seven days. Thereafter, he was treated as an outdoor patient
and had spent about Rs.80,000/- on his treatment. Prior to accident, he was
RENU
2026.05.21 18:52
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
Chandigarh
FAO No.3710 of 2005 &
connected matters -27-running a sweet shop by the name of “Jain Sweet Bhandar”, Rania and used to
earn Rs.50,000/- per month.
69. To prove the injuries suffered by him, claimant has examined PW9
Dr. Vijay Kumar Jaiswal who deposed that on 19.10.2002, injured Inderjit was
brought to CMC Hospital, Hisar with a history of road traffic accident. He had
suffered moderate head injury and multiple scalp lacerations and ear injury. He
remained admitted in the hospital upto 25.10.2002. He was operated upon for
scalp injury and hospital had charged Rs.11,470/- excluding expenses incurred on
medicines and investigations. He tendered the bill Ex.PW9/1, discharge slip
Ex.PW9/2, reports Ex.PW9/3 and Ex.PW9/4 and bills Ex.PW9/6 to Ex.PW9/15.
He deposed that claimant will have to take medicines for one to two years due to
head injuries to prevent convulsions and fits.
70. The Tribunal after going through the material placed on file awarded
him a total compensation of Rs.40,970/- and held as under:-
“In petition “Inderjit Jain Versus Ramesh Kumar etc.” (Petition No.9
of 2003), petitioner sought compensation for injuries/ disability
suffered by him in this accident. Dr. Jaiswal (PW9) deposed before
the tribunal that petitioner remained admitted in C.M.C Hospital,
Hisar after this accident. According to him, Rs.11,470/- were charged
from petitioner as hospital expenses. Abovesaid witness also deposed
that petitioner would require to take medicines for next two years to
avoid further complications. Dr. Jaiswal (PW9) also deposed that
petitioner required services of a permanent attendant for two months
after this accident. Petitioner is entitled to Rs.10,000/- for his future
RENU
2026.05.21 18:52
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
Chandigarh
FAO No.3710 of 2005 &
connected matters -28-medical treatment for the next two years. Petitioner would also get
Rs.10,000/- as charges for a permanent attendant for 2/3 months.
Medical bills Ex.PW9/6 to Ex.PW9/15 show that petitioner spent
Rs.9500/- upon his medical treatment. This amount is also to be
reimbursed to petitioner. Total compensation payable to petitioner
including hospital charges, as referred to above, would, thus, come to
Rs.40970/- only.”
71. A perusal of the award shows that the Tribunal has awarded him total
compensation of Rs.40,970/- which includes Rs.11,470/- towards expenses paid in
the hospital for treatment, Rs.10,000/- for future medical treatment, Rs.9,500/-
again for medical treatment and total expenses on treatment come to Rs.30,970/-.
In addition to this, a sum of Rs.10,000/- has been awarded for engaging a
permanent attendant for 2/3 months. However, no compensation has been awarded
on account of Pain and Sufferings. It has come in the testimony of PW9 that
patient had suffered head injuries and he was operated upon in the hospital and as
such in view of the severity of injuries, the claimant is held entitled to a sum of
Rs.20,000/- for Pain and Sufferings.
72. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.30,970/- for the expenses
incurred on the treatment on the basis of bills produced by him and there is thus
no scope for further enhancement in the same.
73. A sum of Rs.10,000/- has also been awarded for engaging an
attendant for 2/3 months which is also adequate and no interference in the same is
called for.
RENU 2026.05.21 18:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh FAO No.3710 of 2005 & connected matters -29-
74. However, it must have taken at least three months for the injuries to
heal and during this period, claimant must have spent some amount on
transportation as well as on special diet and he is accordingly held entitled to a
sum of Rs.7,500/- (Rs.2,500 X 3) under both these heads.
75. Resultantly, the compensation to be awarded by this Court is assessed
as under:-
Sr. No. Head This Court (₹)
1. Pain and Sufferings Rs.20,000/-
2. Transportation and Special during Rs.7,500/-
the period of treatment
3. Expenditure on treatment Rs.30,970/-
4. Attendant charges Rs.10,000/-
Total Rs.68,470/-
Interest 9%
76.. As a result of afore-said discussion, the present appeal is partly al-
lowed with costs and the claimant is held entitled to enhanced compensation of
Rs.27,500/- (Rs.68,470/- – Rs.40,970/-) over and above the compensation awar-
ded by Tribunal, payable by respondents No.1 to 3 jointly and severally, along
with interest @ 9% per annum, from the date of filing of claim petition i.e.
10.1.2003, till realization.
77. Compensation in FAO No.3716 of 2005
“Champa Lal Vs. Ramesh Kumar and others”:
Claim Petition No.10 of 2003 has been instituted by claimant –
Champa Lal. As per version of claimant, he had suffered grievous injuries
RENU
2026.05.21 18:52
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
Chandigarh
FAO No.3710 of 2005 &
connected matters -30-including fracture of humerus bone and he had spent huge amount on his
treatment.
78. To prove the injuries, claimant had examined PW9 Dr. Vijay Kumar
Jaiswal, CMC Hospital, Hisar, who deposed that on 19.10.2002, patient was
admitted in their hospital as an indoor patient who had suffered chest injury, head
injury and fracture humerus. He was treated in the hospital and was operated
upon for the fracture. Nailing and interlocking was done and he was discharged
on 25.10.2002 vide discharge summary Ex.PW9/16 which bears signatures of Dr.
Manish Soni. He also tendered investigation reports Ex.PW9/17 to Ex.PW9/20.
He further deposed that hospital had charged Rs.16,880/- from the patient vide
receipt Ex.PW9/21 but these bills exclude medicines and investigation charges.
He further stated that the bills for medicines are Ex.PW9/22 to Ex.PW9/36 which
were prescribed by the hospital.
79. The Tribunal after going through the material placed on file, awarded
a sum of Rs.25,000/- for Pain and Sufferings and Rs.28,380/- for the expenditure
incurred on treatment and in all, a sum of Rs.53,580/- was awarded as
compensation to the claimant. However, the compensation granted to the claimant
is grossly inadequate. In view of the severity of the injuries and the fact that the
claimant had undergone surgery for fracture humerus and implant was inserted, he
is held entitled to a sum of Rs.30,000/- for Pain and Sufferings.
80. It must have taken at least three months for the injuries to heal and
during this period, claimant would not have been able to pursue his job or work.
It can be assumed that he must have been earning at least Rs.3,000/- per month
which were the prevalent minimum wage in the year 2002 and he is accordingly
RENU
2026.05.21 18:52
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
Chandigarh
FAO No.3710 of 2005 &
connected matters -31-
held entitled to Rs.9,000/- for loss of income (Rs.3,000/- X 3). During this
period of three months, he must have spent some amount on transportation, in
engaging an attendant and on special diet and he is accordingly held entitled to
a sum of Rs.5,000/- for transportation, Rs.5,000/- for special diet and
Rs.5,000/- for engaging an attendant.
80. So far expenses incurred on treatment are concerned, Tribunal has
awarded a sum of Rs.28,380/- on account of expenses incurred on treatment as per
bills produced by him and the same has thus been rightly assessed.
81. Resultantly, the compensation to be awarded by this Court is assessed
as under:-
Sr. No. Head This Court (₹)
1. Pain and Sufferings Rs.30,000/-
2. Loss of income during the period Rs.9,000/-
of treatment
3. For engaging an attendant, Rs.15,000/-
Expenses incurred on transporta- (Rs.5,000/- each un-
tion and for special diet der each head)
4. Expenses incurred on treatment as Rs.28,380/-
per bills awarded by Tribunal
5. Total Rs.82,380/-
6. Interest 9%
82. As a result of afore-said discussion, the present appeal is partly al-
lowed with costs and the claimant is held entitled to enhanced compensation of
Rs.28,800/- (Rs.82,380/- – Rs.53,580/-) over and above the compensation awar-
ded by Tribunal, payable by respondents No.1 to 3 jointly and severally, along
RENU
2026.05.21 18:52
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
Chandigarh
FAO No.3710 of 2005 &
connected matters -32-
with interest @ 9% per annum, from the date of filing of claim petition i.e.
10.1.2003, till realization.
83. Registry is directed to email the authenticated copy of the award to
the respondent-Insurance Company in terms of directions issued by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in Writ Petition (Civil) No.534 of 2020 titled Bajaj Allianz
General Insurance Company Versus Union of India and others, decided on
16.03.2021 and Insurance Company shall comply with the directions as issued
under Clause (F) of the said judgment.
84. All the pending misc. application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
85. A photocopy of this order be placed on the files of connected cases.
(Yashvir Singh Rathor)
Judge
May 21, 2026
renu
Whether Speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether Reportable Yes/No
RENU
2026.05.21 18:52
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
Chandigarh
