FAO-6518-2017 (O&M) -1-

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH

FAO-6518-2017 (O&M)

UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD.

......Appellant

vs.

RAJBALA AND ORS..

......Respondents

Reserved on:- 28.04.2026

Pronounced on:- 11.05.2026

Uploaded on:- 11.05.2026

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. Harsh Aggarwal, Advocate

for the appellant.

Mr. Dheeraj Narula, Advocate

for respondents No.1 to 5.

Mr. Kuljit Singh, Advocate

for respondents No.6(i) to (iv).

Service upon respondents No.7 and 8 were exempted

vide order dated 28.09.2018.

Respondent No.9 was proceeded ex parte

vide order dated 30.04.2018.

****

SUDEEPTI SHARMA J.

1. The present appeal has been preferred against the award dated

17.05.2017 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sirsa (for

short, 'the Tribunal’) in the claim petition filed under Section 166 of the

FAO-6518-2017 (O&M) -2-

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, wherein the appellant-Insurance company was

fastened with the liability to pay the compensation of Rs.20,51,000/- to the

claimants along with interest @ 9 % 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

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 applying future prospects of 50% instead

of 40% as per the settled law. He further contends that the learned Tribunal

has taken income of deceased on higher side. He further contends that

compensation awarded under the head of funeral expenses is on the higher

side, therefore, he prays that the present appeal be allowed and amount of

compensation be reduced.

4. Per contra, learned counsel for claimants/respondents No.1 to 5

contends that compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal is on the lower

sidehence warrants enhancement. He fairly concedes that no independent

appeal has been preferred by the claimants/respondents No.1 to 5 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-

FAO-6518-2017 (O&M) -3-

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.

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

FAO-6518-2017 (O&M) -4-

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.

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:-

FAO-6518-2017 (O&M) -5-

(A) Deduction of personal and living expenses to

determine multiplicand;

(B) Selection of multiplier depending on age of

deceased;

(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

FAO-6518-2017 (O&M) -6-

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

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

FAO-6518-2017 (O&M) -7-

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

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

FAO-6518-2017 (O&M) -8-

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.”

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".

FAO-6518-2017 (O&M) -9-

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".

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

FAO-6518-2017 (O&M) -10-

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

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 deceased was stated to be 30

years of age at the time of accident, which is duly proved from post-mortem

report. Therefore, the learned Tribunal has rightly assessed his age as 30 years

at the time of accident.

10. Reliance at this stage can be made on judgment of Hon’ble the

Supreme Court in Sunita Vs. Vinod Singh 2025 INSC 366 wherein the

Hon’ble Apex Court held that in absence of material indicating to the

contrary, there is no inhibition to accept the age of deceased as per post

mortem report. The relevant extract of the same is reproduced as under:-

“11. The amount arrived at by the High Court of the

monthly income being Rs.5,819/- (Rupees Five Thousand

FAO-6518-2017 (O&M) -11-

Eight Hundred and Nineteen) as against the claim of

Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) appears to be on the

lower side as the total earning of the deceased from family

pension itself ought to have been considered which itself

would come to Rs.5,137/- (Rupees Five Thousand One

Hundred and Thirty-Seven) to which the notional wages as

a home maker had to be added, which we find is

reasonable as has been taken by the High Court at

Rs.2,500/- (Rupees Two Thousand Five Hundred). Thus,

the monthly income would come to Rs.7,637/- (Rupees

Seven Thousand Six Hundred and Thirty-Seven), which we

are inclined to round off at Rs.7,000/- (Rupees Seven

Thousand) Coming to the multiplier factor which is

dependent on the age, there is sufficient indication that the

deceased was aged about 45 years as per the Post-Mortem

Report which is a scientific assessment of the age of the

deceased. The purported discrepancy in the age with

regard to that of the claimant and the deceased is

erroneous for the reason that when the claim was filed,

appellant no.1 was aged about 30 years and a difference of

15 years between the daughter-in-law and the mother-in-

law cannot be said to be totally devoid of reality given the

contextual and prevalent societal norms in vogue at the

time of marriage of the deceased which could have been at

least 25 to 30 years prior to her death i.e., in or about the

1970s. Moreover, in the absence of material indicating to

the contrary, there is no inhibition to accept the age of

the deceased as per the Post-Mortem Report. Thus, we are

inclined to grant her the benefit of multiplier of 14 taking

her age as 45 years. With regard to the loss of love and

affection, Pranay Sethi (supra) grants Rs.40,000/- (Rupees

Forty Thousand) per head with escalation of 10% every

three years for loss of consortium which has been

interpreted in Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v Nanu

FAO-6518-2017 (O&M) -12-

Ram, (2018) 18 SCC 130 to include spousal, parental, and

filial consortium. Thus, there being five claimants the

amount shall be [Rs.48,000/- x 5] which comes to

Rs.2,40,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs and Forty Thousand)

payable under the head of loss of love and affection.”

11. In view of the above, referred to judgment, the age of deceased is

rightly ascertained as 30 years at the time of accident.

12. A perusal of the award reveals that the deceased was stated to be

working as a driver under Madan Lal on his Jeep No.UP-27A-7466, earning

Rs.9,000/- per month. So far as contention of learned counsel for appellant-

Insurance Company that income of the deceased is taken on higher side is

bereft of merit. It is a settled position of law, as laid down by the Hon’ble

Supreme Court in Chandra @ Chanda @ Chandraram v. Mukesh Kumar

Yadav & Ors., reported as (2022) 1 SCC 198, that in cases where there is no

documentary evidence of income, the minimum wages notification may be

adopted as a guiding factor, but the same cannot be treated as an inflexible or

absolute standard. The Apex Court has further held that a reasonable amount

of guesswork, based on the facts and circumstances of each case, is

permissible and indeed necessary while assessing the income of the deceased.

13. In view of the aforesaid settled legal position, and keeping in

mind the nature of employment, age of the deceased, and the overall facts and

circumstances of the present case, the learned Tribunal has rightly assessed

the monthly income of the deceased as Rs.9,000/- for the purpose of

determining compensation.

14. It further reveals that learned Tribunal has erred adding future

prospects to the tune of 50% instead of 40% as per the settled law, moreover,

FAO-6518-2017 (O&M) -13-

learned Tribunal has erred in deducting 1/3rd towards personal expenditure

instead of 1/4th and amount awarded under the head of loss of consortium is

on the lower side, 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.

No.

Heads Compensation Awarded

1 Monthly Income Rs.9,000/-

2 Future Prospects @ 40% Rs.3,600/- (40% of 9000)

3 Deduction towards personal

expenditure 1/4

Rs.3,150/- (12600 X 1/4)

4 Total Income Rs.9,450/- (12600 – 3,150)

5 Multiplier 17

6 Annual Dependency Rs.19,27,800/- (9450 X 12 X 17)

7 Loss of estate Rs.15,000/-

8 Funeral Expenses Rs.15,000/-

9 Loss of Consortium:

Parental: 2 X Rs.40,000/-

Spousal: 1 X Rs.40,000/-

Filial : 2 X Rs.40,000/-

Rs.2,00,000/-

10Total Compensation Rs.21,57,800/-

11Amount Awarded by the

Tribunal

Rs.20,51,000/-

12Enhanced amount Rs.1,06,800/-

(Rs. 21,57,800 - Rs.20,51,000)

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

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

FAO-6518-2017 (O&M) -14-

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

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

FAO-6518-2017 (O&M) -15-

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 CPC

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 on

which the Court from whose decree the appeal is preferred

has omitted or refused to make such order.]

12 to 18 XXX XXX XXX

FAO-6518-2017 (O&M) -16-

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

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

FAO-6518-2017 (O&M) -17-

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

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

entitlement merely due to procedural technicalities such as

the absence of a cross-appeal.

FAO-6518-2017 (O&M) -18-

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 respondents No.1 to 5-

claimants are 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 along with 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 claimants/respondents No.1 to 5. The claimants/respondents

No.1 to 5 are directed to furnish their 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.

11.05.2026 (SUDEEPTI SHARMA)

Ayub/Sahil JUDGE

Whether speaking/non-speaking : Yes/No

Whether reportable : Yes