Punjab-Haryana High Court
Amarjit Kaur And Ors vs Buta Singh And Ors on 28 January, 2025
Author: Alka Sarin
Bench: Alka Sarin
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:012863
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HAR YANA AT CHANDIGARH
236-1 FAO-8708-2014 (O&M)
Date of Decision : 28.01.2025
Amarjit Kaur and Ors. ....Appellants
VERSUS
Buta Singh and Ors. ....Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ALKA SARIN
Present : Mr. Rajbir Singh, Advocate for the appellants.
Mr. Manish Bansal, Advocate for
Ms. Mansi Bansal, Advocate for respondent Nos.1 and 2.
Mr. Punit Jain, Advocate for respondent No.3.
ALKA SARIN, J. (Oral)
1. Present appeal has been preferred by the claimant-appellants
challenging the award dated 15.07.2014 passed by the Motor Accident
Claims Tribunal, Sangrur (hereinafter referred to as the 'Tribunal')
aggrieved by the quantum of compensation as well as the finding whereby
50% amount of compensation has been deducted on account of contributory
negligence of Harpreet Singh, driver of the Maruti Zen car bearing
registration No.PB-31-D-6131, in which Dharamjit Singh (hereinafter
referred to as the 'deceased') was a passenger.
2. The brief facts relevant to the present lis are that on 15.12.2012
the deceased - Dharamjit Singh - alongwith Harpreet Singh was going to
Patiala in a Maruti Zen Car bearing registration No.PB-31-D-6131 which
was being driven by the Harpreet Singh and the deceased - Dharamjit Singh
1 of 8
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:012863
was sitting as a passenger. They were being followed by Kirpal Singh and
Rajvir Singh in their Jeep bearing registration No.PB-13-W-3200. At about
06.00 am, when they reached near bypass of village Nadampur towards
Patiala, a truck bearing registration No.PB-13-V-9767 (hereinafter referred
to as the 'offending vehicle'), owned by respondent Nos.1 and 2 and driven
by respondent No.1, was parked in the middle of the road without any
indicators or parking lights. On account of the darkness, Harpreet Singh
could not notice the offending vehicle parked in the middle of the road as a
result of which it hit the offending vehicle. Both the occupants of the Maruti
Zen car died on the spot. FIR was registered. In a written statement jointly
filed by respondent Nos.1 and 2 the accident was denied. However, it was
admitted that the offending vehicle was owned by respondent Nos.1 and 2.
Respondent No.3-Insurance Company also filed it's written statement
raising various preliminary objections. On merits, it was stated that the
driver of the offending vehicle was not holding a valid and effective driving
licence and that the offending vehicle was not being driven as per provision
of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
3. From the pleadings of the parties the following issues were
framed :
1. Whether death of Dharamjit Singh took place as a
result of rash and negligent driving of respondent Buta
Singh of truck bearing registration No.PB-13-V-9767 on
15.12.2012 at about 06.00 am in the area of village
Nadmpur bypass on Bhawanigarh-Patiala road ? OPA
2 of 8
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:012863
2. If issue No.1 is proved, whether the applicants are
entitled to compensation, if so, to what amount and from
whom ? OPA
3. Whether respondent No.1 was holding a valid and
effective driving licence at the time of accident ? OPR-1
4. Relief.
4. The Tribunal on issue No.1 though held that the accident stood
proved, however, held that Harpreet Singh, driver of the Maruti Zen car had
not been driving his vehicle with care and caution and hence held it to be a
case of contributory negligence to the extent of 50%. The Tribunal in the
present case had awarded the following compensation holding appellant
No.1 entitled to the compensation and appellant No.2 and proforma
respondent No.4, who are father and sister of the deceased, were not given
any share in compensation. Hence, the present appeal by the claimant-
appellants.
Sr. No. Heads Compensation Awarded
1 Monthly income Rs.6,250/-
2 Future prospects - 30% [Rs.6,250 + 1,875] = Rs.8,125/-
3 Annual income [Rs.8,125 x 12] = Rs.97,500/-
4 Deduction - 50% [Rs.97,500 - 48,750] = Rs.48,750/-
5 Multiplier of 18 [Rs.48,750 x 18] = Rs.8,77,500/-
6 Loss of estate Rs.10,000/-
7 Funeral expenses Rs.25,000/-
Total Compensation Rs.9,12,500/-
Interest 9% per annum
3 of 8
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:012863
5. Learned counsel for the claimant-appellants would contend that
the Tribunal merely on the premise that the Maruti Zen car was not being
driven carefully and with caution, keeping in view the inclement weather
and the time when the accident took place, wrongly held it to be a case of
contributory negligence especially when the deceased was only a passenger
in the said car and could not in any manner have contributed to the accident.
Learned counsel for the claimant-appellants has relied upon a judgment of
Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Smt. K. Anusha & Ors. vs. Regional
Manager, Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd. [2021(4) RCR (Civil)
569] to contend that to establish contributory negligence, some act or
omission, which materially contributed to the accident to damage, has to be
attributed to a person against whom the contributory negligence is alleged. It
is further the contention that the Tribunal has made an addition of 30%
towards loss of future prospects. The deceased in the present case was 24
years of age and hence an addition of 40% ought to have been made towards
loss of future prospects. Further, the amounts awarded under the
conventional heads as well as under the head 'loss of consortium' are also
not in accordance with the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. It
has further been contended that though the father and sister of the deceased
were not held entitled to compensation, however, they would be entitled to
loss of filial consortium. In support of his contentions, he has relied upon the
judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Sarla Verma &
Ors. vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr. [(2009) 6 SCC 121],
National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors. [(2017) 16
4 of 8
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:012863
SCC 680], Magma General Insurance Company Limited vs. Nanu Ram
alias Chuhru Ram & Ors. [(2018) 18 SCC 130] and N. Jayasree & Ors.
vs. Cholamandalam M.S General Insurance Company Ltd. [2021(4)
RCR (Civil) 642].
6. Per contra learned counsel for respondent No.3 would contend
that sufficient amount of compensation has already been awarded. It is
further the contention that it was clearly a case of contributory negligence as
the person who was driving the ill-fated car did not take full care and
precaution.
7. Heard.
8. In the present case the accident took place on 15.12.2012 at
06.00 am. The driver of the offending vehicle, who stepped into the witness-
box, merely denied the factum of the accident. It is an admitted fact that the
driver of the offending vehicle was even convicted in a criminal case vide
judgment dated 01.10.2015. It has nowhere come in the evidence of the
respondents that the offending vehicle was parked on the side or there were
any indicators which were switched on by the driver of the offending vehicle
while parking it in the middle of the road. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the
case of Smt. K. Anusha (supra) has held as under :
"13. Therefore, the entire reasoning of the High Court
on Issue No.1 is riddled with inherent contradictions. To
establish contributory negligence, some act or omission,
which materially contributed to the accident or the
damage, should be attributed to the person against whom
5 of 8
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:012863
it is alleged. In Pramodkumar Rasikbhai Jhaveri vs.
Karmasey Kunvargi Tak and Others, (2002) 6 SCC 455
this Court quoted a decision of the High Court of
Australia in Astley v. Austrust Ltd., (1999) 73 ALJR 403,
to hold that "....where, by his negligence, one party
places another in a situation of danger, which compels
that other to act quickly in order to extricate himself, it
does not amount to contributory negligence, if that other
acts in a way which, with the benefit of hindsight is
shown not to have been the best way out of the difficulty".
In fact, the statement of law in Swadling v. Cooper, 1931
AC 1, that "....the mere failure to avoid the collision by
taking some extraordinary precaution, does not in itself
constitute negligence....", was also quoted with approval
by this Court. Therefore, we are compelled to reverse the
finding of the Tribunal and the High Court on the
question of contributory negligence."
9. There is not an iota of evidence on the record to even remotely
suggest that there was some act or omission on the part of the driver of the
Maruti Zen car, in which the deceased in the present case was travelling as a
passenger and could not have in any manner contributed to the accident. In
view thereof, the finding returned by the Tribunal qua the contributory
negligence cannot be sustained and is accordingly set aside.
6 of 8
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:012863
10. In the present case, there is no challenge to the income,
deduction and multiplier as applied by the Tribunal and hence the same are
maintained. However, the Tribunal has made an addition of 30% towards
loss of future prospects. The deceased in the present case was more than 24
years of age and hence in view of the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme
Court in case of Pranay Sethi (supra), an addition of 40% ought to have
been made towards loss of future prospects. Further, the amount awarded by
the Tribunal under the conventional heads is not accordance with the law
and hence, as per the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the
cases of Pranay Sethi (supra), Magma General Insurance Company
Limited (supra) and N. Jayasree (supra), the claimant-appellants would be
entitled to Rs.18,000/- (Rs.15,000+20% increase) towards loss of estate and
Rs.18,000/- (Rs.15,000+20% increase) towards funeral expenses. The
Tribunal has not awarded any amount towards loss of consortium. Though
the Tribunal has held that the father and sister of the deceased would not be
entitled to compensation, however, they would be entitled to loss of
consortium. Accordingly, the appellants i.e. mother, father and sister would
be entitled to Rs.48,000/- each (Rs.40,000+20% increase) towards loss of
filial consortium. Accordingly, the reworked compensation is as under :
Sr. No. Heads Compensation Awarded
1 Monthly income Rs.6,250/-
2 Annual income [Rs.6,250 x 12] = Rs.75,000/-
3 Deduction 50% [Rs.75,000 - 37,500] = Rs.37,500/-
4 Future prospects @ 40% [Rs.37,500 + 15,000] = Rs.52,500/-
5 Multiplier of 18 [Rs.52,500 x 18] = Rs.9,45,000/-
6 Loss of estate Rs.18,000/-
7 of 8
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:012863
7 Funeral expenses Rs.18,000/-
8 Loss of consortium
(i) Filial [Rs.48,000 x 3] = Rs.1,44,000/-
Total Rs.11,25,000/-
11. The amount in excess of and over and above the amount
awarded by the Tribunal shall also attract interest @ 9% per annum from the
date of filing of the claim petition till the realization of the entire amount.
Appellant No.1-mother of the deceased would be entitled to enhanced
amount of compensation as mentioned above and appellant No.2 and
proforma respondent No.4 i.e. father and sister of the deceased would only
be entitled to Rs.48,000/- each towards filial consortium.
12. In view of the above discussion, the present appeal is allowed
and the award passed by the Tribunal stands modified accordingly. Pending
applications, if any, also stand disposed off.
( ALKA SARIN )
28.01.2025 JUDGE
jk
NOTE: Whether speaking/non-speaking: Speaking
Whether reportable: YES/NO
8 of 8
