Punjab-Haryana High Court
Oriental Insurnance Comapny Ltd vs Akaleeman And Anr on 19 February, 2026
Author: Sudeepti Sharma
Bench: Sudeepti Sharma
FAO-137-2024 (O&M) -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
FAO-137-2024 (O&M)
ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.
......Appellant
vs.
AKALEEMAN AND ANR.
......Respondents
Reserved on:- 15.01.2026
Pronounced on:- 19.02.2026
Uploaded on:- 23.02.2026
Whether only the operative part of the judgment is pronounced? NO
Whether full judgment is pronounced? YES
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA
Present: Mr. Varun Sharma, Advocate
for the appellant.
Mr. Ashish Rana, Advocate
for respondent No.1.
****
SUDEEPTI SHARMA J.
1. The present appeal has been preferred against the award dated
09.10.2023 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sonepat
(for short, ‘the Tribunal’) in the claim petition filed under Section 166 read
with Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, wherein, the
appellant/insurance company was held liable to pay the compensation to the
claimants/respondents to the tune of Rs.11,91,600/- along with interest @ 7%
per annum, on the ground of quantum of compensation to be on higher side.
2. As sole issue for determination in the present appeal is confined
to quantum of compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal, a detailed
1 of 21
::: Downloaded on – 24-02-2026 21:11:13 :::
FAO-137-2024 (O&M) -2-
narration of the facts of the case is not required to be reproduced here for the
sake of brevity.
SUBMISSIONS OF LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES
3. Learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company contends
that the learned Tribunal has erred in taking entire notional income of the
deceased, as assessed by it, into consideration without making any deduction
therefrom on the count of personal and living expenses. He relies upon the
judgment rendered by the three Judges’ Bench of the Apex Court in Kirti and
anr. etc versus Oriental Insurance Company Ltd, Law Finder Doc Id #
1795020, in support of his contentions, therefore, he prays that the present
appeal be allowed and amount of compensation be reduced.
4. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.1/claimant
contends that compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal is on the lower
side hence warrants enhancement. He fairly concedes that no independent
appeal has been preferred by the respondent-claimant for seeking such
enhancement. Nonetheless, placing reliance on the judgment of this Court
passed in FAO-5934-2015 titled as ‘National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Laltesh
and others‘, decided on 31.01.2026, he contends that this Court, in exercise
of its appellate jurisdiction, possesses ample power to enhance the quantum of
compensation even in the absence of a cross-appeal or cross-objections filed
by the claimant. He therefore, prays that the compensation be enhanced.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
whole record of this case with their able assistance.
2 of 21
::: Downloaded on - 24-02-2026 21:11:14 :::
FAO-137-2024 (O&M) -3-
SETTLED LAW ON COMPENSATION
6. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma Vs. Delhi
Transport Corporation and Another [(2009) 6 Supreme Court Cases 121],
laid down the law on assessment of compensation and the relevant paras of
the same are as under:-
“30. Though in some cases the deduction to be made
towards personal and living expenses is calculated on the
basis of units indicated in Trilok Chandra, the general
practice is to apply standardised deductions. Having a
considered several subsequent decisions of this Court, we
are of the view that where the deceased was married, the
deduction towards personal and living expenses of the
deceased, should be one-third (1/3rd) where the number of
dependent family members is 2 to 3, one-fourth (1/4th)
where the number of dependent family members is 4 to 6,
and one-fifth (1/5th) where the number of dependent family
members exceeds six.
31. Where the deceased was a bachelor and the claimants
are the parents, the deduction follows a different principle.
In regard to bachelors, normally, 50% is deducted as
personal and living expenses, because it is assumed that a
bachelor would tend to spend more on himself. Even
otherwise, there is also the possibility of his getting
married in a short time, in which event the contribution to
the parent(s) and siblings is likely to be cut drastically.
Further, subject to evidence to the contrary, the father is
likely to have his own income and will not be considered
as a dependant and the mother alone will be considered as
a dependant. In the absence of evidence to the contrary,
brothers and sisters will not be considered as dependants,
because they will either be independent and earning, or
married, or be dependent on the father.
3 of 21
::: Downloaded on - 24-02-2026 21:11:14 :::
FAO-137-2024 (O&M) -4-
32. Thus even if the deceased is survived by parents and
siblings, only d the mother would be considered to be a
dependant, and 50% would be treated as the personal and
living expenses of the bachelor and 50% as the
contribution to the family. However, where the family of
the bachelor is large and dependent on the income of the
deceased, as in a case where he has a widowed mother
and large number of younger non-earning sisters or
brothers, his personal and living expenses may be
restricted to one-third and contribution to the family will
be taken as two-third.
* * * * * *
42. We therefore hold that the multiplier to be used should
be as mentioned in Column (4) of the table above
(prepared by applying Susamma Thomas³, Trilok Chandra
and Charlie), which starts with an operative multiplier of
18 (for the age groups of 15 to 20 and 21 to 25 years),
reduced by one unit for every five years, that is M-17 for
26 to 30 years, M-16 for 31 to 35 years, M-15 for 36 to 40
years, M-14 for 41 to 45 years, and M-13 for 46 to 50
years, then reduced by two units for every five years, that
is, M-11 for 51 to 55 years, M-9 for 56 to 60 years, M-7
for 61 to 65 years and M-5 for 66 to 70 years.
7. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance
Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors. [(2017) 16 SCC 680] has clarified the
law under Sections 166, 163-A and 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, on
the following aspects:-
(A) Deduction of personal and living expenses to
determine multiplicand;
(B) Selection of multiplier depending on age of
deceased;
4 of 21
::: Downloaded on – 24-02-2026 21:11:14 :::
FAO-137-2024 (O&M) -5-
(C) Age of deceased on basis for applying multiplier;
(D) Reasonable figures on conventional heads, namely,
loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses,
with escalation;
(E) Future prospects for all categories of persons and for
different ages: with permanent job; self-employed or fixed
salary.
The relevant portion of the judgment is reproduced as under:-
“52. As far as the conventional heads are concerned, we
find it difficult to agree with the view expressed in Rajesh².
It has granted Rs.25,000 towards funeral expenses, Rs
1,00,000 towards loss of consortium and Rs 1,00,000
towards loss of care and guidance for minor children. The
head relating to loss of care and minor children does not
exist. Though Rajesh refers to Santosh Devi, it does not
seem to follow the same. The conventional and traditional
heads, needless to say, cannot be determined on
percentage basis because that would not be an acceptable
criterion. Unlike determination of income, the said heads
have to be quantified. Any quantification must have a
reasonable foundation. There can be no dispute over the
fact that price index, fall in bank interest, escalation of
rates in many a field have to be noticed. The court cannot
remain oblivious to the same. There has been a thumb rule
in this aspect. Otherwise, there will be extreme difficulty in
5 of 21
::: Downloaded on – 24-02-2026 21:11:14 :::
FAO-137-2024 (O&M) -6-
determination of the same and unless the thumb rule is
applied, there will be immense variation lacking any kind
of consistency as a consequence of which, the orders
passed by the tribunals and courts are likely to be
unguided. Therefore, we think it seemly to fix reasonable
sums. It seems to us that reasonable figures on
conventional heads, namely, loss of estate, loss of
consortium and funeral expenses should be Rs.15,000,
Rs.40,000 and Rs.15,000 respectively. The principle of
revisiting the said heads is an acceptable principle. But
the revisit should not be fact-centric or quantum-centric.
We think that it would be condign that the amount that we
have quantified should be enhanced on percentage basis in
every three years and the enhancement should be at the
rate of 10% in a span of three years. We are disposed to
hold so because that will bring in consistency in respect of
those heads.
* * * * *
59.3. While determining the income, an addition of 50%
of actual salary to the income of the deceased towards
future prospects, where the deceased had a permanent job
and was below the age of 40 years, should be made. The
addition should be 30%, if the age of the deceased was
between 40 to 50 years. In case the deceased was between
6 of 21
::: Downloaded on – 24-02-2026 21:11:14 :::
FAO-137-2024 (O&M) -7-
the age of 50 to 60 years, the addition should be 15%.
Actual salary should be read as actual salary less tax.
59.4. In case the deceased was self-employed (or) on a
fixed salary, an addition of 40% of the established income
should be the warrant where the deceased was below the
age of 40 years. An addition of 25% where the deceased
was between the age of 40 to 50 years and 10% where the
deceased was between the age of 50 to 60 years should be
regarded as the necessary method of computation. The
established income means the income minus the tax
component.
59.5. For determination of the multiplicand, the deduction
for personal and living expenses, the tribunals and the
courts shall be guided by paras 30 to 32 of Sarla Verma⁴
which we have reproduced hereinbefore.
59.6. The selection of multiplier shall be as indicated in
the Table in Sarla Verma¹ read with para 42 of that
judgment.
59.7. The age of the deceased should be the basis for
applying the multiplier.
59.8. Reasonable figures on conventional heads, namely,
loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses
should be Rs 15,000, Rs 40,000 and Rs 15,000
respectively. The aforesaid amounts should be enhanced at
the rate of 10% in every three years.”
7 of 21
::: Downloaded on - 24-02-2026 21:11:14 :::
FAO-137-2024 (O&M) -8-
8. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Magma General
Insurance Company Limited Vs. Nanu Ram alias Chuhru Ram & Others
[2018(18) SCC 130] after considering Sarla Verma (supra) and Pranay
Sethi (Supra) has settled the law regarding consortium. Relevant paras of the
same are reproduced as under:-
“21. A Constitution Bench of this Court in Pranay Sethi²
dealt with the various heads under which compensation is
to be awarded in a death case. One of these heads is loss
of consortium. In legal parlance, “consortium” is a
compendious term which encompasses “spousal
consortium”, “parental consortium”, and “filial
consortium”. The right to consortium would include the
company, care, help, comfort, guidance, solace and
affection of the deceased, which is a loss to his family.
With respect to a spouse, it would include sexual relations
with the deceased spouse.
21.1. Spousal consortium is generally defined as rights
pertaining to the relationship of a husband-wife which
allows compensation to the surviving spouse for loss of
“company, society, cooperation, affection, and aid of the
other in every conjugal relation”.
21.2. Parental consortium is granted to the child upon the
premature death of a parent, for loss of “parental aid,
protection, affection, society, discipline, guidance and
training”.
8 of 21
::: Downloaded on - 24-02-2026 21:11:14 :::
FAO-137-2024 (O&M) -9-
21.3. Filial consortium is the right of the parents to
compensation in the case of an accidental death of a
child. An accident leading to the death of a child causes
great shock and agony to the parents and family of the
deceased. The greatest agony for a parent is to lose their
child during their lifetime. Children are valued for their
love, affection, companionship and their role in the family
unit.
22. Consortium is a special prism reflecting changing
norms about the status and worth of actual relationships.
Modern jurisdictions world-over have recognised that the
value of a child’s consortium far exceeds the economic
value of the compensation awarded in the case of the
death of a child. Most jurisdictions therefore permit
parents to be awarded compensation under loss of
consortium on the death of a child. The amount awarded
to the parents is a compensation for loss of the love,
affection, care and companionship of the deceased child.
23. The Motor Vehicles Act is a beneficial legislation
aimed at providing relief to the victims or their families,
in cases of genuine claims. In case where a parent has
lost their minor child, or unmarried son or daughter, the
parents are entitled to be awarded loss of consortium
under the head of filial consortium. Parental consortium
is awarded to children who lose their parents in motor
9 of 21
::: Downloaded on – 24-02-2026 21:11:14 :::
FAO-137-2024 (O&M) -10-
vehicle accidents under the Act. A few High Courts have
awarded compensation on this count. However, there was
no clarity with respect to the principles on which
compensation could be awarded on loss of filial
consortium.
24. The amount of compensation to be awarded as
consortium will be governed by the principles of awarding
compensation under “loss of consortium” as laid down in
Pranay Sethi². In the present case, we deem it appropriate
to award the father and the sister of the deceased, an
amount of Rs 40,000 each for loss of filial consortium.
9. A perusal of the award reveals that the deceased-Sayara was
stated to be 55 years old at the time of the accident. It is evident from the
record that the deceased-Sayara was a homemaker. However, learned Tribunal
has erred in assessing her income on the lower side i.e. Rs.8,000/- per month.
This Court in FAO-1292-2006, titled as “Jasbir Singh and another Vs. Surjit
Singh and others“, decided on 22.03.2018, has assessed the notional income
of a housewife. The relevant extract of the same is reproduced as under:-
“In FAO No. 218 of 2014, a co-ordinate Bench of this
Court, while relying upon the principles laid down in Lata
Wadhwa and others v. State of Bihar and others 2001(4)
RCR(Civil) 673), made the following observations:-
“Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that
even while noticing that the income of a skilled
worker in 2012 was approximately Rs.8000/- the
Tribunal has wrongly assessed the income of the
deceased as Rs.9000/-. As per him once the notional
income had been taken a deduction had to be made
for personal expenses. This argument is flawed. In
10 of 21
::: Downloaded on – 24-02-2026 21:11:14 :::
FAO-137-2024 (O&M) -11-
Lata Wadhwa and others v. State of Bihar and others
reported as 2001(4) RCR (Civil) 673 (where the
accident had taken place in 1981) the Hon’ble
Supreme Court evaluated the contribution of a house
wife at Rs.3000/-per month. The accident in the
present case took place after 23 years. In my
considered opinion to tag a house wife as a ‘skilled
worker’ alone does not do complete justice to her
multifarious role as a home manager. Keeping in
view the lapse of 23 years between the accident in
the case of Lata Wadhwa and the present accident
and my conclusion that a house wife is something
more than a mere skilled worker it would not be
unreasonable to estimate the contribution of the
deceased in the present case at a higher figure. On
the whole I see no reason for reducing the quantum.”
7. I find sufficient reason to follow the judgment in FAO
No. 218 of 2014, particularly as I am informed that the
Special Leave Petition (SLP) filed against the order in this
case has been dismissed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court.
Similarly, the SLP filed in the other case cited by the
appellants has also met the same fate. Consequently, these
orders have attained finality, leaving no scope for further
dispute regarding their binding nature.
8. It is imperative to acknowledge the multifaceted role of
a housewife as a homemaker. Her contributions extend
beyond measurable economic parameters, encompassing
household management, child care, emotional support, and
the upkeep of familial stability. These services, though
often unrecognized in monetary terms, are invaluable to
the functioning and well- being of a household. In
assessing compensation, the court must factor in this
indispensable contribution, which would otherwise
necessitate considerable expenditure if outsourced. In view
11 of 21
::: Downloaded on – 24-02-2026 21:11:14 :::
FAO-137-2024 (O&M) -12-
of the above, it is just and reasonable to determine the
monthly income of the deceased Charanjit Kaur, housewife
at Rs.9,000/- per month, therefore, the award requires
interference by the Court.”
10. In Jasbir Singh‘s case (supra), the notional income of a
housewife was taken as Rs.9000/-. However, in the present case, with the
accident occurring in 2017, and in view of sustained inflation, the rising cost
of living, and jurisprudential acknowledgment of the far-reaching economic
contribution of homemakers, it is both just and reasonable to reassess the
notional income of the deceased.
11. The work of a housewife transcends caretaking embracing
preparation of meals for the entire family; procurement of groceries and
household supplies; cleaning and maintenance of the house and surroundings;
financial planning and budget management; child care and education; tending
to elderly dependents; coordinating repairs and homebased healthcare etc.
These services, if procured in the open market, would command substantial
remuneration, underscoring the integral role played by a homemaker in family
stability.
12. In light of the above legal position and having due regard to the
facts and circumstances of the present case, this Court finds it appropriate to
assess the notional income of the deceased-Sayara (since deceased) at
Rs.18,000/- per month.
13. A perusal of the award further reveals that the learned Tribunal
has rightly awarded 10% towards future prospects and applied multiplier of
11, which is in consonance with the settled law. However, it is evident from
the record that the learned Tribunal has erred in not deducting any amount for
12 of 21
::: Downloaded on – 24-02-2026 21:11:14 :::
FAO-137-2024 (O&M) -13-
deduction towards personal expenditure, the said approach of learned Tribunal
is contrary to the law settled by Hon’ble Apex Court in Kirti’s case (supra). In
view of the above and considering the dependant, a deduction of 1/2 is to be
made towards personal expenditure.
14. A perusal of award further reveals that no amount of
compensation has been awarded by learned Tribunal for loss of consortium,
therefore, the award requires indulgence of this Court.
15. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the compensation is liable to
be recalculated as under:
Sr. Heads Compensation Awarded
No.
1 Monthly Income Rs.18,000/-
2 Future Prospects @ 10% Rs.1,800/- (10% of 18,000)
3 Deduction towards personal Rs.9,900/- (19800 X 1/2)
expenditure 1/2
4 Total Income Rs.9,900/- (19800 - 9900)
5 Multiplier 11
6 Annual Dependency Rs.13,06,800/- (9900 X 12 X 11)
7 Funeral Expenses Rs.15,000/-
8 Loss of Consortium Rs.40,000/-
9 Total Compensation Rs.13,61,800/-
10 Amount Awarded by the Rs.11,91,600/-
Tribunal
11 Enhanced amount Rs.1,70,200/-
(Rs.13,61,800 - Rs.11,91,600)
16. The aforesaid re-computation gives rise to a further issue, i.e.
whether the award passed by the Tribunal can be enhanced in an appeal
13 of 21
::: Downloaded on – 24-02-2026 21:11:14 :::
FAO-137-2024 (O&M) -14-
preferred by the insurance company, when the claimant has not filed any
cross-objection or cross-appeal. It is pertinent to mention that this Court in
FAO-5934-2015 titled as ‘National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Laltesh and
others‘, decided on 31.01.2026 has already dealt with the similar issue and
held that the compensation can be enhanced in appeal filed by the Insurance
Company even in the absence of cross-objections and cross-appeals filed by
the claimants. The relevant extract of the same is reproduced as under:-
“28. This question came up for consideration before three-
Judge Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Surekha &
Ors. v. Santosh & Ors., (2021) 16 SCC 467. The relevant
portion of the said order reads as follows:
1. Leave granted. This appeal takes exception
to the judgment and order dated 4-1-2019
[Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd. v.
Surekha, 2019 SCC OnLine Bom 12] passed
by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay,
Bench at Aurangabad in First Appeal No.
2564 of 2016, whereby the High Court, even
though agreed with the stand of the
appellants that just compensation amount
ought to be Rs 49,85,376 (Rupees forty-nine
lakhs eighty-five thousand three hundred
seventy-six only), however, declined to grant
enhancement merely on the ground that the
appellants had failed to file cross-appeal.
2. By now, it is well-settled that in the matter
of insurance claim compensation in
reference to the motor accident, the court
should not take hypertechnical approach
and ensure that just compensation is
14 of 21
::: Downloaded on – 24-02-2026 21:11:14 :::
FAO-137-2024 (O&M) -15-
awarded to the affected person or the
claimants.
3. As a result, we modify the order passed by
the High Court to the effect that the
compensation amount payable to the
appellants is determined at Rs 49,85,376
(Rupees forty-nine lakhs eighty-five thousand
three hundred seventy-six only), with interest
thereon as awarded by the High Court.
4. The appeal is allowed in the above terms.
Pending applications, if any, stand disposed
of.”
29. In view of the above, settled principles of law as
held by Apex Court this Court can award just and
reasonable compensation by enhancing the amount of
compensation, even in the absence of a cross-objection
or cross-appeal by the claimants.
30. This conclusion is further strengthened by
the settled principle that a Court adjudicating claims
under the Motor Vehicles Act is duty-bound to award
just and fair compensation to victims of road accidents,
unrestrained by strict rules of pleadings and evidence,
as laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in
Nagappa v. Gurudayal Singh & Ors (2003)2SCC 274.
31. Furthermore, this Court in FAO-5834-2016
titled as The Oriental Insurance Company Limited Vs.
Smt. Mathri Devi and others decided on 12.09.2025
has already dealt with similar issue and held as under:-
“This Court in FAO-195-2006, titled Mamata
and others v. Happy and others, decided on
29.05.2024, while examining the scope of the
appellate jurisdiction under Section 107 CPC15 of 21
::: Downloaded on – 24-02-2026 21:11:14 :::
FAO-137-2024 (O&M) -16-read with Order XLI Rule 33 CPC, has held as
follows:-
“11. RELEVANT PROVISONS UNDER THE CODE
OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908
Section 107 :- Powers of Appellate Court.– (1) Subject to
such conditions and limitations as may be prescribed, an
Appellate Court shall have power–
(a) to determine a case finally;
(b) to remand a case;
(c) to frame issues and refer them for trial;
(d) to take additional evidence or to require such evidence
to be taken.
(2) Subject as aforesaid, the Appellate Court shall have
the same powers and shall perform as nearly as may be
the same duties as are conferred and imposed by this Code
on Courts of original jurisdiction in respect of suits
instituted therein.
Order XLI Rule 33 of the Code of Civil Procedure,
1908:-
33. Power of Court of Appeal.–The Appellate Court shall
have power to pass any decree and make any order which
ought to have been passed or made and to pass or make
such further or other decree or order as the case may
require, and this power may be exercised by the Court
notwithstanding that the appeal is as to part only of the
decree and may be exercised in favour of all or any of the
respondents or parties, although such respondents or
parties may not have filed any appeal or objection and
may, where there have been decrees in cross-suits or where
two or more decrees are passed in one suit be exercised in
respect of all or any of the decrees, although an appeal
may not have been filed against such decrees:
[Provided that the Appellate Court shall not make any
order under section 35A in pursuance of any objection on16 of 21
::: Downloaded on – 24-02-2026 21:11:14 :::
FAO-137-2024 (O&M) -17-
which the Court from whose decree the appeal is preferred
has omitted or refused to make such order.]
12 to 18 XXX XXX XXX
19. As per Section 107 of Code of Civil
Procedure, 1908 which refers to the powers of the
Appellate Court, the Appellate Court shall have the
same powers and shall perform as nearly as may be
the same duties as are conferred and imposed by the
Code on Courts of original jurisdiction in respect of
suits instituted therein, and the Motor Vehicle Act
1988 since being a beneficial legislation, the
evidence led by the parties cannot be ignored by the
Appellate Authority.
20 to 25 XXX XXX XXX
CONCLUSION
26. The Appellate Courts for the purpose of doing
complete justice between the parties and completely
adjudicating upon all the disputes, after
appreciating the whole evidence on record, have
power under Section 107 read with Order XLI Rule
33 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 to pass any
decree and make any order which ought to have
been passed or made and to pass or make such
further decree or order as the case may require, and
this power may be exercised by the Court
notwithstanding that the appeal is as to part only of
the decree and may be exercised in favour of all or
any of the respondents or parties, although such
respondents or parties may not have filed any
appeal or objection.
27. Motor vehicle statute is a beneficial
legislation. Generally the victims/claimants/legal-
representatives are not aware of their right to
compensation and it is Advocates who decide under
17 of 21
::: Downloaded on – 24-02-2026 21:11:14 :::
FAO-137-2024 (O&M) -18-
which provision of the statute the claim petition is to
be filed. Before deciding the claim petitions, after
appreciating the evidence on record, it is the
bounden duty of the Court to apprise the parties of
their legal rights as to under which provision they
can get the maximum of benefit/compensation. The
Judges should apply their judicial mind after
appreciating the evidence on record, gravity of
offence, gravity of loss, conduct of parties and over
all facts and circumstances of each case and after
that decide the same. The Court should not go into
the technicalities that under which provision of
statute case is to be filed, specially in the motor
accident cases. If at any stage after appreciating the
evidence, since it is original jurisdiction of the
Court and the case is at initial stage, normally a
person of ordinary prudence can calculate the loss
of near and dear one’s/relationship, the Judge feels
that case of the claimant falls under a particular
section he should apprise the parties regarding the
same. The Courts should not apply straight jacket
formula in every case and are presumed actually to
do the justice by applying their judicial mind to the
facts and circumstances of each and every case. The
beneficial intent of the legislation ought to be borne
in mind and procedural and technical formalities
cannot be invoked to defeat the purpose of the
legislation.
28. The Courts have to be very cautious and
careful while accepting the prayer of the
claimants/appellants to convert the claim petition
filed under Section I63-A to Section 166 of the
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Under Section 107 read
with Order XLI Rule 33 of CPC the general rule is
18 of 21
::: Downloaded on – 24-02-2026 21:11:14 :::
FAO-137-2024 (O&M) -19-
that an appeal is persistence of a suit and, therefore,
an Appellate Court can do, while the appeal is
pending, what the original Court could have done
while the suit was pending. Thus, as per Section 107
Order XLI Rule 33 of CPC, an Appellate Court is
empowered to re-appreciate the evidence. While
hearing the appeal it is very important for a judge to
apply his judicial mind. The Appellate Authority can
re-appreciate the evidence before it. The grant of
just and fair compensation is a statutory
responsibility of the Court.
29. Over all conclusion of the above is that the
Appellate Court has power to convert the petition
under Section 163-A to Section 166 of the Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988 to give justice to the claimants.”
13. It is manifest from the above discussion that
although respondents/claimants No.1 and 2 have not
preferred any appeal seeking enhancement of
compensation, and the present appeal has been instituted
solely by the appellant-Insurance Company challenging
the quantum of compensation, the settled principle of law
is that an appeal is a continuation of the original
proceedings. Consequently, the appellate court is vested
with ample jurisdiction to mould relief and to award just
and proper compensation, even in the absence of a cross-
appeal by the claimants.
14. In exercise of such appellate powers, this Court
cannot overlook the beneficial nature of the Motor Vehicles
Act, 1988, which has been consistently interpreted as a
piece of social welfare legislation intended to provide just
compensation to victims of motor accidents and their
dependents. The statutory duty of the Court is to ensure
that the claimants are not deprived of legitimate
19 of 21
::: Downloaded on – 24-02-2026 21:11:14 :::
FAO-137-2024 (O&M) -20-
entitlement merely due to procedural technicalities such as
the absence of a cross-appeal.
15. Accordingly, in the interest of justice, and to secure
the ends of a fair adjudication, this Court deems it
appropriate to award a further sum of ₹18,150/- under the
head “Loss of Estate” in favour of respondents/claimants
No.1 and 2.
16. It is well settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in K.
Ramya v. National Insurance Co. Ltd., 2022 (4) RCR
(Civil) 435 that the Motor Accident Claims Tribunals are
vested with latitude to determine “just compensation” and
are not shackled by rigid arithmetical rules or strict
standards of evidence as in civil suits for damages.
Interference by the Appellate Court is warranted only
when the award of compensation is manifestly excessive,
arbitrary, or contrary to settled principles.”
17. So far as the interest part is concerned, as held by Hon’ble
Supreme Court in Dara Singh @ Dhara Banjara Vs. Shyam Singh Varma
2019 ACJ 3176 and R.Valli and Others VS. Tamil Nandu State Transport
Corporation (2022) 5 Supreme Court Cases 107, the respondent No.1-
claimant is granted the interest @ 9% per annum on the enhanced amount
from the date of filing of claim petition till the date of its realization.
18. The appellant-Insurance Company is directed to deposit the
enhanced amount of compensation alongwith interest with the Tribunal within
a period of two months from today. The Tribunal is further directed to
disburse the enhanced amount of compensation alongwith interest in the
account of the claimant/respondents No.1 as per award dated 09.10.2023. The
20 of 21
::: Downloaded on – 24-02-2026 21:11:14 :::
FAO-137-2024 (O&M) -21-
claimant/respondent No.1 is directed to furnish his bank account details to the
Tribunal.
19. Consequently, the present appeal, being devoid of merits, stands
dismissed.
20. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.
19.02.2026 (SUDEEPTI SHARMA)
Ayub JUDGE
Whether speaking/non-speaking : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes
21 of 21
::: Downloaded on - 24-02-2026 21:11:14 :::
