Punjab-Haryana High Court
Kulwinder Kaur And Ors vs Jagwant Singh And Ors on 7 November, 2025
1
FAO No.7284
No.7284 of 2018 (O&M)
(O&M)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
FAO No.7284
No.7284 of 2018
2018 (O&M)
Date of Reserve: 01.
01.10.202
10.2025
.2025
Date of Decision: 07.11.202
11.2025
.2025
KULWINDER KAUR AND ANR. ......Appellant
......Appellant(s)
Appellant(s)
Vs
JAGWANT SINGH AND ORS.
ORS. ....Respondent(
....Respondent(s)
MANUJA
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJ A
Present: Mr. Yogesh Gupta, Advocate
for the appellants.
appellant
Mr. Sandeep Suri, Advocate
for
or respondent No.3/Insurance
No. /Insurance Company.
****
HARKESH MANUJA, J.
[1]. By way of present appeal, challenge has been laid to an award dated
14.08.2018 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, S.A.S. Nagar
(Mohali) (hereinafter
hereinafter to be referred as "the Tribunal") vide which the claim
petition filed by the appellants/claimants was dismissed.
[2]. The brief facts, as set out in the claim petition, are that on 13.09.2016
at about 8:00 A.M.,
A ., Paramjit Singh (since deceased), son of Jaswant Singh, was
standing on the left side of the road on the kacha portion nnear
ear Chadha Petrol Pump,
Transport Nagar, Ludhiana, after having uploaded his truck. At that juncture, a
truck bearing registration No.PB13-Z-5067
No. 5067 (hereinafter referred to as the
"offending vehicle") came from behind, being driven by respondent No.1 Jagwant
Singh in a rash and negligent manner and without blowing any horn, hit Paramjit
Singh, which resulted in grievous injuries to Paramjit Singh, which ultimately
proved fatal and thus, it was pleaded that the
the accident occurred due to the rash and
negligent driving of the offending vehicle by respondent No.1.
1 of 12
FAO No.7284
(O&M)
[3]. Upon issuance of notice in the claim petition, respondents No.1 and 2
initially made appearance through counsel. However, they failed to pursue the
matter further. Consequently, vide order dated 004.09.2017,
were proceeded against ex parte. Meanwhile, respondent No.
No.3/Insurance
3/Insurance
Company, put in appearance through counsel and filed written statement, denying
the factum of accident.
accident
[4]. From the pleadings of the parties, the learned Tribunal framed the
following issues:-
issues:
1. Whether Paramjit Singh died in a motor vehicular accident which
took place on 13.09.2016 on account of rash and negligent driving of the
Truck bearing no. PB13-Z-5067
PB13 5067 driven by respondents no.1 Jagwant
Singh? OPP.
2. If issue no.1 is proved, whether the claimants are entitled to receive
the compensation, if so, to what extent and from which of the respondent?
OPP.
3. Whether the claim petition is not maintainable in the present form?
OPR.
4. Whether thehe respondent No.1 Jagwant Singh was not having valid
and effective driving license at the time of accident, if so, its effect? OPR.
5. Relief."
[5]. After taking into consideration the pleadings and the evidence on
record, the learned Tribunal vide its Award dated 14.08.2018 dismissed the claim-
claim
petition. Hence, the claimants/appellants filed the present appeal
appeal.
ARGUMENTS
ON BEHALF OF APPELLANTS/CLAIMANTS
[6]. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the learned Tribunal
dismissed the claim petition wrongly on the ground that reliance could not be
placed solely on the testimony of the eye-witness,
eye witness, Jarnail Singh, who deposed that
2 of 12
FAO No.7284
(O&M)
the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by
its driver, Jagwant Singh, as in the police challan, the name of the accused was
recorded as Jaswant Singh. It was contended that the accident stood duly proved
from the evidence available
available on record and, in fact, the same was deemingly
admitted by respondents No. 1 and 2, being the driver and owner of the offending
vehicle respectively, as the both though appeared before the learned Tribunal
pursuant to notice of the claim petition, however,
ever, they failed to file their written
statement and were consequently proceeded against ex parte. Accordingly, learned
counsel prayed that the present appeal be allowed and the appellants/claimants be
awarded just and adequate compensation in accordance with the settled principles
of law.
ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT No.3/INSURANCE COMPANY
[7]. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.3/Insurance Company,
vehemently argued that there were too many contradictions in the statements of the
witnesses about the accident in question, thus, the claim petition was rightly
declined and consequently, he prayed for dismissal of the present appeal.
DISCUSSION
[8]. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the paper
book of the case. I find force in the arguments
arguments advanced by the learning counsel
for the appellants/claimants.
[9]. Before proceeding further, it would be appropriate to reproduce the
relevant portion of the Award passed by the learrned Tribunal:-
14. At the very outset, it is pertinent to mention that, after the filing of
the present petition, in pursuance of the notice issued by the Court,
3 of 12
FAO No.7284
(O&M)
respondent No.1 Jagwant Singh, son of Sewa Singh, in the capacity of
being driver and respondent No.2 Akbar Ali, in the capacity of being
owner, of the vehicle in question, had made appearance through counsel.
Sh. A.S. Longia Advocate had appeared on behal
behalff of both respondents.
However, despite repeated adjournments, having been granted, reply on
behalf of respondents no.1 and 2 was not filed. Even, last opportunity was
granted to file the reply, but they did not file the reply. Even on,
04.09.2017, none had
had made appearance on behalf of respondents no. 1 and
2. As such, respondents no. 1 and 2 were proceeded against ex
ex-parte.
parte.
Keeping this thing in mind, it is pertinent to mention that the insurance
company, at the time of summoning of the witnesses, had file
filedd an
application for summoning of Jagwant Singh, son of Sewa Singh. However,
perusal of the summons sent, reveals that the same were returned back with
the report that there is no person by this name, in the village. This report
also itself cautious the Tribunal.
Tribunal. If, there is no person by this name, the
question arises, as to how the respondent no.1 had made appearance
through counsel, in the present case, at first instance.
15. Not only this, it is also important to make reference to the report u/s
173 Cr.P.C., filed qua the criminal case bearing FIR no. 139 dated
13.09.2016, u/s 279, 427, 304-A
304 A IPC, P.S. Division no. 6, Ludhiana.
Undisputedly, the FIR with the aforesaid recitals, had been got registered
by the father of the deceased and the copy of the FIR has also been proved
by PW-2
PW as PW2/B. However, RW-33 HC Sawinder Singh had brought the
police file of the same, copy whereof, consisting of pages 1 to 83, is
Ex.RW3/A. It is pertinent to mention that in the said challan, even though,
complainant Jaswant
Jaswant Singh, in his statement, had stated the accident, to
have been caused by Jagwant Singh, son of Sewa Singh, which he had
come to know from his friend Jarnail Singh, son of Inder Singh, but,
however, the challan has been presented against Jaswant Singh, so
sonn of late
Chhota Singh, resident of village Allorakh. Though, now it is submittedby
counsel for the claimants that it is a typographical mistake, but however, it
is pertinent to mention that it is not only in the report u/s 173 Cr.P.C., the
name of the accused
accused has been mentioned as Jaswant Singh, son of late
Chhota Singh, but however, repeatedly, it has been so mentioned in the
various memos, which forms part of Ex.RW3/A. It also finds mention in
the statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C. Furthermore, it is also pertine
pertinent
nt to mention
4 of 12
FAO No.7284
(O&M)
that in one statement of C-II
C II Mandeep Singh, which is dated 16.09.2016,
there is mention of Akbar Ali, son of Gurmit Khan, who is registered owner
of the offending truck, had produced Jagwant Singh, son of Chhota Singh.
In the light of Akbar Ali, to have produced the driver before the police
authorities, it cannot be said that the name of the driver has been
inadvertently mentioned as Jaswant Singh, son of Chhota Singh, in the
report u/s 173 Cr.P.C. Also, it is pertinent to mention that, at th
thee tail end of
the report u/s 173 Cr.P.C., there is mention of list of documents annexed,
which also mentions about the driving license of Jagwant Singh. However,
this driving license, which would have made the things crystal clear, is not
brought on the police
police file, copy whereof is Ex.RW3/A. In these
circumstances, one has to be cautious to appraise the statement of Jarnail
Singh PW-2,
PW 2, as an eye witness. Though, the said witness, in his affidavit
Ex.PW2/A, had stated about having witnessed the accident, but however, it
is pertinent to mention that the said witness is also resident of village
Gobindpura, P.S. Milk Khana, District Rampur, U.P. Though, he had stated
about himself to have witnessed the accident, how he came to know about
the name of the driver of
of the truck, he has not stated so. Rather, there is
nothing, as such, coming on record, about his presence, at the spot of
accident, at the relevant time. While facing cross
cross-examination,
examination, he had
stated that he never knew the driver earlier and Jagwant Singh had himself
disclosed his particulars at the spot. Meaning thereby, it was Jagwant
Singh, son of Sewa Singh, as pleaded in the claim petition, but however, in
pursuance of investigation conducted by the police authorities, it is evident
that the challan has
has been presented against Jaswant Singh, son of late
Chhota Singh. To clarify such an anomalous situation, coming forth, it is
also pertinent to mention that the person by the name of respondent no.1, in
the capacity of being driver of the truck in questio
question.
n. Considering such
circumstances, coming forth, the reliance, as such, cannot be placed solely
on the testimony of PW-2
PW 2 Jarnail Singh, qua the manner of taking place of
the accident. In fact, it also raises doubt about the presence of the said
witness, at the relevant spot. In the light of the same, also the identity of
respondent No.1 Jagwant Singh, in the capacity of being driver of the truck
bearing registration no. PB13-Z-5067,
PB13 5067, is not established, in concrete
manner. Rather, there are traces of doubt, coming forth, from the
documents, so produced by the insurance, in its evidence. Thus, considered
5 of 12
FAO No.7284
(O&M)
as a whole, the present petition appears to be a stage managed petition, with
the sole purpose to seek compensation from the insurance company.
Precisely on this
this account, issues no.1, 2 and 3 are decided against the
claimants."
[10]. Upon careful perusal of the impugned award, it is evident that the
learned Tribunal committed a manifest error in dismissing the claim petition on the
premise that the claimants/appellants
claimants/appellants had failed to establish the identity of
respondent No.1, i.e., driver of the offending vehicle.
[11]. Factually, on the contrary, the
t eye--witness,
witness, Jarnail Singh, appeared in
the witness box as PW-2
PW 2 and furnished a detailed and consistent narration of the
circumstances leading to the accident. He categorically deposed that on
13.09.2016, Paramjit Singh (deceased) was standing on the left side of the road on
the kacha portion near Chadha Petrol Pump, Transport Nagar, Ludhiana, after
loading his truck, when,
when another truck bearing registration N
No.PB13-Z-5067,
5067,
approached from behind, being driven in a rash and negligent manner, without
blowing any horn, and hit against Paramjit Singh. His testimony remained
consistent and unimpeached during cross-examination
cros examination and could not be discredited
on any material aspect. The oral testimony, of the said eye
eye-witness
witness thus, carries
due credibility and inspires the judicial confidence of this Court.
[12]. The Tribunal has, however, erroneously placed undue emph
emphasis
asis on the
discrepancy regarding the name of the driver as recorded in the FIR (Ex.PW
(Ex.PW-2/B),
2/B),
which was lodged on the very date of the accident
accident,, wherein the name of the driver
of offending vehicle was mentioned as Jaswant Singh, whereas, in the claim
petition
on as well as in the deposition of Jarnail Singh (PW
(PW-2),
2), his name was referred
correctly to as Jagwant Singh. It is trite law that in cases involving motor
accidents, it is not uncommon to be unaware of the particulars of the offending
6 of 12
FAO No.7284
(O&M)
vehicle or its driver
driver at the initial stage. The law does not require the FIR to be a
comprehensive narrative, nor does it necessitate exact identification of the vehicle
or its driver at the inception. The primary object of lodging the FIR is to set the
criminal law in motion,
motion, and any subsequent identification emerging from
investigation is sufficient in law to establish the involvement of the driver of the
offending vehicle.
[13]. However, instead of rendering a reasoned finding on this issue, i.e.
whether Paramjit Singh died
died in a motor vehicular accident which took place on
13.09.2016 on account of rash and negligent driving of the Truck bearing
registration No.PB13-Z-5067
No. 5067 driven by respondent no.1 Jagwant Singh, the
learned Tribunal erroneously chose to dismiss the claim in toto. This approach of
learned Tribunal is legally unsustainable and runs counter to the well
well-settled
settled
principles governing adjudication under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act,
1988, which mandates that the learned Tribunal must assess the evidence on record
based on the principle of preponderance of probablities and determine the liability
of the parties, rather than rejecting a claim on speculative or extraneous grounds.
[14]. The testimony of the eye-witness
eye witness Jarnail Singh (PW
(PW-2),
2), is found to be
detailed,
ailed, consistent and trustworthy. Despite being subjected to extensive cross-
cross
examination, his deposition remained unshaken and credible. He specifically
deposed regarding the rash and negligent manner in which the truck bearing
registration no. PB13-Z-5067
PB13 7 was being driven and duly corroborated the sequence
of events in detail. He further stated that the driver of the offending vehicle had
personally disclosed his name to him at the spot of the accident. His deposition
inspires the confidence of this Court and merely on the ground that the FIR
(Ex.PW2/B) records the name of the driver as Jaswant Singh, the present case
7 of 12
FAO No.7284
(O&M)
cannot be dismissed. It is further pertinent to note that respondents no.1 and 2,
namely Jagwant Singh and Akbar Ali, being the driver and oowner
wner of the offending
vehicle respectively, had entered appearance through counsel in response to the
notice issued by the learned Tribunal, yet failed to controvert their involvement.
Furthermore, respondent no.3/Insurance Company had also brought the record
relating to issuance of driving license in the name of Jagwant Singh son of Chhota
Singh, resident of village Alloarkh, District Sangrur.
[15]. In the light of the above discussio
discussion,
n, this Court is of the considered
view that the finding of the learned Tribunal regarding identity of the respondent
no. 1/driver of the offending vehicle is based on mere assumptions and not borne
out from the evidence on record. The consistent, credible and unimpeached
testimony of eye-witness
eye witness when read in conjunction with the other evidence on
record, unequivocally establishes that the accident occurred solely due to rash and
negligent driving of truck bearing
bearing registration No.
No.PB13-Z-5067- the offending
vehicle- by respondent no.1 i.e. Jagwant Singh. The mention of the driver's name
as Jaswant Singh in the FIR is evidently a mere typographical or clerical error.
[16]. Consequently, the impugned award dated 14.08.2018 is hereby set
aside. It is held that the accident in question occurred due to the rash and negligent
driving of truck bearing registration No.PB13
No.PB13-Z-5067
5067 by respondent No.1
No.
(Jagwant Singh). Therefore, the appellants/claimant
appellant /claimants are entitled to compensation
as per settled law.
[17]. With respect
respect to determination of compensation, the record contains
evidence of postmortem report, copy of account statement and copy of LIC
endowment plan. Consequently, this Court shall adjudicate the compensation in
accordance with the documentary evidence on the rrecord.
8 of 12
FAO No.7284
(O&M)
QUESTION OF INCOME ASSESSED
[18]. A perusal of the record indicates that the deceased was paying a
19,927/ . The Hon'ble Apex Court on the case of "Gurpreet
monthly EMI of Rs. 19,927/-.
Kaur & Ors. v. United India Insurance Company Ltd. & Ors. [Civil Appeal nos.
6981--82 of 2022] decided on 27.09.2022" qua an accident which had occurred on
12.11.2014 and where the deceased was paying a monthly installment of
Rs.11,550/- towards loan of the tractor had assessed the monthly income as
Rs.25,000/-.. In the present case, there is cogent evidence available on record to
show that the deceased was paying a monthly installment of Rs. 19,927/
19,927/- as per
Ex.PW1/J. In view thereof, taking a view from the judgment of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of Gurpreet Kaur (supra), the income of the deceased is
assessed as Rs.30,000/- per month.
[19]. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of "Smt. Sarla Verma and
others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another," reported as 2009(3) RCR
(Civil) 77, went on to hold that in case the number of dependent family members
were 4 to 6, 1/4th would be deducted as personal expenses from the total income.
Relevant para of the judgment is culled out as under:
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[(1996) 4 SCC 362], the general practice is to apply standardized
deductions. Having considered several subsequent decisions of this Court,
we are of the view
view that where the deceased was married, deduction towards
personal and living expenses of the deceased, should be one
one-third
third (1/3rd)
where the number of dependent family members is 2 to 3, one
one-fourth
fourth
(1/4th) where the number of dependent family members is 4 to 6, and one-
one
fifth (1/5th) where the number of dependent family member exceeds six."
QUESTION OF COMPENSATION UNDER CONVENTIONAL HEADS
9 of 12
FAO No.7284
(O&M)
[20]. Furthermore, in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in
Smt. Sarla Verma's case (supra), "National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi
and others" reported as (2017) 16 SCC 680 and "United India Insurance Co.Ltd.
vs. Satinder Kaur", reported as (2021) 11 SCC 780, compensation awarded under
conventional heads are also required to be assessed accordingly.
Appellants/claimants are thus,
thus, held entitled for Rs.
Rs.18,000/- as compensation
tion under
funeral head and Rs.18,000/-
Rs. towards loss of estate. Loss of consortium is assessed
to the tune of Rs.1,92,000/-
Rs. (Rs.48,000
48,000 x 4) as the appellants, being spouse, child
and parents of deceased are also entitled for spousal, parental and filial consortium.
[21]. Now, the question arises how the compensation is to be distributed
among the legal heirs. In this regard, it may be taken into account that from the
material available
availabl on record it is evident that appellant
ppellant No.
No.1
1 (widow of deceased)
did not remarry and she along with her minor child were solely dependent upon the
deceased,
ased, accordingly appellant No.1
No.1 is held entitled for 60% of the compensation
compensatio
amount, whereas appellant No.22 and proforma respondent No.4
o.4 be granted the
remaining 40% in equal shares. It may be clarified here that the aforementioned
ratio of 60:40 would be minus the consortium as all the appell
appellants/claimants
ants/claimants shall
separately and individually entitled for consortium
consortium in their favour.
CONCLUSION
[22]. In view of the discussion made herein above, the appellants/claimants
and proforma respondent no. 3 are held entitled for the grant of compensation in
the following manner:-
manner:
Sr.No. Nature Amount in
Rupees
1. Annual Income of Deceased Rs. 3,60,000/-
3,60,000/
2. Add 40% Future Prospects Rs. 1,44,000/-
1,44,000/
10 of 12
FAO No.7284
(O&M)
3 Total Income (Rs. 3,60,000 + Rs. 1,44,000) Rs. 5,04,000/-
5,04,000/
4. Deduction (1/4) Rs. 1,26,000/-
1,26,000/
5. Net Income (Rs. 5,04,000 --Rs. 1,26,000) Rs. 3,78,000/-
3,78,000/
6. Loss of Income after applying multiplier Rs. 68,04,000/-
68,04,000/
of 18 as per age of 24 years (3,78,000 x
18)
7. Funeral Expenses Rs. 18,000/-
8. Loss of Estate Rs. 18,000/-
Total Compensation Rs. 68,40,000/
,000/-
Thus, the appellant No.1/widow
1/widow is entitled for Rs.
Rs.41,40,000/- and
appellant No.2
2 and proforma respondent No.4
No.4 are entitled for Rs.
Rs.27,00,000/-- in
equal proportions as compensation.
[23]. Similarly, the appellants/claimants
appellants/claimants and proforma respondent Nos.
Nos.4
4&
5 shall also be entitled for following amount of compens
compensation as consortium:-
S.No. Name/Appellant Consortium Amount
1. Kulwinder Kaur (widow) Rs.48,000/-
2. Paramjot Singh (minor son) Rs.48,000/-
3. Balwinder Kaur (mother of deceased) Rs.48,000/-
4. Jaswant Singh (father of deceased) Rs.48,000/-
[24]. In view of the observations made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Smt. Supe Dei and others Vs. National Insurance Company Limited and other,
(2009) (4) SCC 513 approved in a subsequent judgment titled as Puttamma and
another,
others Vs. K.L. Narayana Reddy and anoth er, 2014 (1) RCR (Civil) 443 the grant
of interest @ 9% per annum on the amount of compensation is awarded to the
claimants from the date of institution of claim petition till its realization. In case
11 of 12
FAO No.7284
(O&M)
the said amount is not paid within three months, the same shall be payable
thereafter along with 12% interest from the expiry of period of three months from
today.
[25]. In view of aforesaid modification, the present appeal stands disposed
of. Pending miscellaneous application(s) if any, shall also stand ddisposed of.
(HARKESH MANUJA)
November 07, 2024
2024 JUDGE
Atik
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether reportable Yes/No
12 of 12
