[Cites 3, Cited by 0]
Punjab-Haryana High Court
National Insurance Co. Ltd vs Vimal Kaur And Ors on 18 December, 2025
Author: Sudeepti Sharma
Bench: Sudeepti Sharma
FAO-6751-2017 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
FAO-6751-2017
Reserved on:- 14.11.2025
Pronounced on:- 18.12.2025
Date of Uploading:-19.12.2025
NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD
......Appellant
vs.
VIMAL KAUR AND ORS
......Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA
Present: Mr. Vishavjeet Bedi, Advocate
for the appellant
Mr. Harinder Singh Sandhu, Advocate
for respondent Nos. 1 to 4.
****
SUDEEPTI SHARMA J.
1. The present appeal has been preferred against the award dated
10.07.2017 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,
Kurukshetra (for short, 'the Tribunal') in the claim petition filed under Section
166 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.19,60,000/- along with interest @
7.5% 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 6
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
vehemently argues that the compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal is
on the higher side. He further submits that the Tribunal has erred in assessing
the monthly income of the deceased at ₹15,680/- by placing reliance upon the
wage notification issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Kurukshetra,
applicable to skilled labour/heavy vehicle drivers, instead of adopting the
minimum wages for skilled labour in the State of Haryana. Accordingly, he
prays that the present appeal be allowed and amount of compensation be
reduced as per latest law.
4. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 1 to 4/claimants
contends that the amount of compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal is
on the lower side and they have preferred separate appeal bearing FAO No.
8217-2017 titled as Vimal Kaur and others vs. Kashmiri Lal and others
seeking enhancement of the amount of compensation. Therefore, he prays that
the present appeal be dismissed.
5. I have heard learned counsels for the parties and perused the
whole record of this case with their able assistance.
6. At the outset, it is apposite to reiterate the well-settled
principle governing appellate jurisdiction. It is trite law that a Court
sitting in appeal does not substitute its own view for that of the Court
below merely because an alternative view is possible. Interference is
warranted only where the impugned findings are vitiated by perversity,
illegality, or material irregularity, or suffer from such infirmities as
2 of 6
render them unsustainable in law. In the absence of such vitiating
factors, interference in appellate jurisdiction is wholly unwarranted.
7. In the present case, a perusal of the record shows that the driving
licence of the deceased was produced and exhibited as Ex. R-6. The said
licence clearly reflects that the deceased was authorised to drive heavy and
medium goods vehicles. Thus, the deceased was duly qualified to be treated
as a skilled worker in the category of heavy vehicle driver.
8. There is nothing on record to demonstrate that the wage rates
notified by the Deputy Commissioner, Kurukshetra, were not applicable to the
deceased. In the absence of any cogent evidence to the contrary, the learned
Tribunal was justified in relying upon the said notification while determining
the income of the deceased. The approach adopted by the Tribunal cannot be
said to be arbitrary or erroneous.
9. The aforesaid view also finds support from the judgment of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Saroj & Ors. v. IFFCO-Tokio General Insurance
Co. & Ors., 2024 INSC 816. The relevant extract of the same is
reproduced as under:-
"5. On appeal to the High Court, vide judgment and
order dated 9th March, 2023 passed in FAO Nos.8504 of
2017 (O&M) and 6836 of 2017 (O&M) the amount
awarded by the MACT was reduced to Rs.9,22,336/-
noting that minimum wage rates issued by the Government
are uniformly applicable throughout the State and,
therefore, constitute a better measure for calculating the
notional income of a deceased person, as opposed to
special DC rates notified by the Deputy Commissioner of a
3 of 6
District, and, therefore, would only be applicable to that
particular district. Further, it was observed that with
respect to the age at the time of death, the Aadhar Card of
the deceased records his date of birth to be 1st January
1969; thus, the age comes to 47 years. Hence, the
multiplier applicable would be 13.
6. The claimant-appellants, aggrieved by the
reduction, have approached this Court. Before us, it was
contended that the multiplier applicable would be 14
since, in the School Leave Certificate the date of birth of
the deceased is shown as 7th October, 1970. His age, then
at the time of the accident was 45 years. They were further
aggrieved by the calculation of monthly income to be
Rs.5,886/-.
7. Notice was issued on 17th October, 2023. The
matter was then sent to Lok Adalat by way of an order
dated 23rd July 2024. A subsequent order dated 2nd
August 2024 records that the matter could not be settled.
8. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties
and also perused the record. The questions arising for
consideration are - (a) in case of conflict of the dates of
birth between the two documents, as in this case between
the School Leaving Certificate and the Aadhar Card,
which of the two is to be taken as authoritative; and (b)
whether in the facts of the case, the High Court's reduction
4 of 6
of the compensation awarded by the learned MACT, was
justified and in accordance with law?
9. This Court is of the view that the High Court erred
in undertaking the reduction as it has. The reasons
therefore are recorded in the following paragraphs.
9.1 The general rule insofar as appellate proceedings
are concerned is that a Court sitting in appeal is not to
substitute its view for that of the Court below. It is only to
see that the decision arrived at is not afflicted by
perversity, illegality or any other such vice which may
compromise it beyond redemption.
9.2 It is also well settled that an order is not to be
interfered with simply because another view is possible,
which, in the impugned order the High Court seems to
have done.
9.3 The question before the High Court was not as to
which yardstick to use to determine the notional income of
the deceased was 'better'. Since there is nothing on record
to establish that the rates notified by the District
Commissioner, Rohtak, would not apply to the deceased,
we find no reason to interfere with the finding of the
Tribunal. Further, the testimonies of PWs 2, 5 and 6 show
that he is an agriculturist who owned his own tractor and
a JCB machine."
10. This Court finds no merit in the contention raised by the
appellant-Insurance Company on the ground that the learned Tribunal erred in
5 of 6
assessing the monthly income of the deceased at ₹15,680/- by placing reliance
upon the wage notification issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Kurukshetra,
applicable to skilled labour/heavy vehicle drivers, instead of adopting the
minimum wages for skilled labour in the State of Haryana i.e. ₹8,245/-.
11. In view of the foregoing discussion and the law laid down by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court, this Court is of the considered opinion that the
findings recorded by the learned Tribunal qua the assessment of the monthly
income of the deceased do not suffer from any infirmity or illegality. The
same are, therefore, hereby affirmed.
12. Consequently, the present appeal is dismissed.
13. The statutory amount of Rs.25,000/- deposited by the appellant-
Insurance Company at the time of admission of the appeal, is ordered to be
refunded to them.
14. Pending application (s), if any, also stand disposed of.
18.12.2025 (SUDEEPTI SHARMA)
Gaurav Arora JUDGE
Whether speaking/non-speaking : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes
6 of 6
