Punjab-Haryana High Court
National Insurance Company Ltd vs Anshu Devi And Ors on 7 November, 2025
FAO Nos. 2090-2019 (O&M)
and 3063-2019 (O&M) 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
218 Date of decision: 07.11.2025
1. FAO-2090-2019 (O&M)
National Insurance Co. Ltd. ...Appellant(s)
Vs.
Anshu Devi and others ...Respondent(s)
AND
2. FAO-3063-2019 (O&M)
Anshu Devi and others ...Appellant(s)
Vs.
National Insurance Company Limited and others ....Respondent(s)
CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA
Present:- Mr. Devansh Khanna, Advocate for
the appellant-Insurance Company
(in FAO-2090-2019) & for respondent
No.1-Insurance Company
(in FAO-3063-2019).
Ms. Tanika Goyal, Advocate for
respondents No.1 to 4 (in FAO-2090-2019)
and for the appellants (in FAO-3063-2019).
***
NIDHI GUPTA, J.
FAO-2090-2019:
The present appeal has been filed by the Insurance Company
seeking setting aside of the Award dated 05.12.2018 passed by the
learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chandigarh (hereinafter referred
to as "the Tribunal"); whereby Claim Petition No. 619 dated 01.11.2017
filed by the claimants/respondents No.1 to 4 herein, under Section 166 of
FAO Nos. 2090-2019 (O&M)
the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), has
been allowed; and the claimants have been awarded compensation of
Rs.48,86,130/- alongwith interest @ 7.5% p.a. The 4 claimants are the
widow; and 3 minor children of the deceased Sanjay Goswami, who was
32 years old at the time of accident.
FAO-3063-2019
The present appeal has been filed by the claimants seeking
enhancement of compensation of Rs.48,86,130/- granted by the learned
MACT, Chandigarh vide Award dated 05.12.2018 passed in Claim Petition
No. 619 dated 01.11.2017 filed under Section 166 of the Act. The 4
claimants are the widow; and 3 minor children of the deceased Sanjay
Goswami, who was 32 years old at the time of accident.
CM-10487-CII-2019 in FAO-3063-2019:
Prayer in this application filed by the applicants/claimants
under Section 5 of the Limitation Act is for condonation of delay of 11
days in filing the appeal.
2. For the reasons cited in the application, which is duly
supported by an affidavit of the applicant/appellant No.1, the same is
allowed; and the delay of 11 days in filing the appeal is condoned.
FAO Nos.2090-2019 & 3063-2019 (O&M)
Both the above said appeals are being disposed of by this
common order as both arise out of the same impugned Award dated
05.12.2018; both appeals are between same parties; in respect of the same
DIVYANSHI accident dated 7/8.10.2017; and the facts and issues involved in both the
FAO Nos. 2090-2019 (O&M)
cases are identical. For the sake of facility, facts are being drawn from FAO-
2090-2019 filed by the Insurance Company.
2. The case as pleaded by the claimants in the Claim Petition as
recorded by the Tribunal in para 1 of the impugned Award is as as follows:-
"...............It was stated in the application that the deceased
was 32 years old and was working as Contractor of paint and white
wash and was earning Rs.45,000/- per month; that on the
intervening night of 7/8.10.2017, deceased Sanjay Goswami, while
driving Activa Scooty bearing registration no.PB65-J-5319 was
returning to his house at village Kajheri and Dharminder Paswan was
sitting on pillion; that at about 12:20 am on the intervening night of
7/8.10.2017, they reached little short of Kumbra Chowk, when car
bearing registration no.CH03-H-8747 (here-in-after referred as "the
offending vehicle") driven by respondent no.1 crossed the Activa of
deceased in dangerous manner at high speed and in rash and
negligent manner, due to which the Activa of deceased struck against
the footpath and both occupants of the Activa fell on the road; that
deceased Sanjay Goswami sustained serious injuries on his head and
other parts of the body and was taken to Civil Hospital, Phase-6,
Mohali in PCR, where he was declared brought dead by doctors; that
the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the
offending vehicle by respondent no.1; that deceased was not at all at
fault; that in respect of the accident, First Information Report no. 157
dated 8.10.2017, was registered at Police Station Mataur, District SAS
Nagar, Mohali, under Sections 279, 304-A, 337 and 427 of Indian
Penal Code, against the driver of the offending vehicle."
3. The learned Tribunal upon appraisal of the pleadings, and the
oral and documentary evidence adduced by the parties, concluded that
FAO Nos. 2090-2019 (O&M)
deceased-Sanjay Goswami had died due to the injuries suffered by him in a
motor vehicular accident that took place on intervening night of
7/8.10.2017 due to the rash and negligent driving of a Car bearing
registration No. CH03-H-8747 (hereinafter referred to as 'the offending
vehicle'), which was driven by respondent No.5; owned by respondent
No.6; and insured by appellant-Insurance Company herein. The above said
compensation was granted by the learned Tribunal alongwith interest @
7.5% per annum from the date of institution of the claim petition till
realization. All the respondents were held jointly and severally liable to pay
the above said compensation.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant/Insurance Company assails
the impugned Award by submitting that the claimants are not entitled to
compensation as the alleged offending vehicle has been falsely implicated
in the present accident. It is submitted that this is borne out from the fact
that the FIR no.157, which had been registered on the statement made by
PW3 Dharminder Paswan who was pillion rider on the scooty driven by the
deceased, was registered against unknown person and unknown driver. It is
contended that if Dharminder Paswan was eyewitness as claimed, then FIR
could not have been registered against unknown person and unknown
driver; and the names and details of the offending vehicle and its driver
would have been mentioned in the FIR. It is further argued that there was
no occasion for PW3 to not disclose this information as, as per the medical
record, the doctor had declared PW3 fit to make statement on 08.10.2017.
DIVYANSHI Yet, FIR was registered against unknown person and unknown vehicle. It is
FAO Nos. 2090-2019 (O&M)
only in the supplementary statement dated 10.10.2017 Ex.P28 made by
PW3 that the name of the driver and the details of the offending vehicle
were mentioned. It is not clear as to how PW3 discovered these details 2
days after the accident. Learned counsel argues that this establishes that
offending vehicle was falsely implicated in the case.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company further
submits that the above said suspicion is further fortified from the fact that
as per the Mechanical Report Ex.P27 in respect of the offending vehicle, it is
found that there was no damage caused to the offending vehicle. It is
contended that this corroborates the fact that the offending vehicle was not
involved in the accident in question. Moreover, the driver of the offending
vehicle had not entered into the witness box. He had also not filed any
police complaint. Learned counsel submits that claim petition has been
allowed only on the ground that driver/respondent No.5 did not enter into
witness box and had not filed any police complaint; thereby admitting his
involvement in the accident in question. It is contended that this fact
alludes to the collusion between the claimants and respondent No.5.
6. With respect to quantum, it is submitted by learned counsel for
the Insurance Company that income of the deceased has been taken as
Rs.3,70,124/- p.a. on the basis of his Income Tax Return for the Assessment
Year 2016-17 Ex.P18. However, the said income is on the higher side as
nothing has been brought on record to show as to what business was the
deceased involved in, what was his occupation, and what was his source of
FAO Nos. 2090-2019 (O&M)
the said income. It is contended that therefore, income of the deceased has
been taken on the higher side and compensation deserves to be decreased.
7. Per contra, learned counsel for the claimants/respondents No.
1 to 4 opposes submissions made on behalf of Insurance Company and
submits that appellant-Company has been unable to prove any collusion
between the claimants and respondent No.5/driver. It is submitted that
there is no Mechanical Report on record to indicate that there was no
damage caused to the offending vehicle. It is further argued that the Motor
Vehicle Act is a beneficial legislation and cannot be equated with the
criminal trial; and involvement of the offending vehicle has been proved
before the Tribunal on the preponderance of probabilities.
8. As regards quantum, learned counsel for the claimants
contends that claimants had produced Income Tax Returns of the deceased
for 4 years preceding his death. It is pointed out that as per Income Tax
Returns for the Assessment Years 2013-2014, 2014-2015, 2015-2016, and
2016-2017 (Ex.P15 to Ex.P18), deceased had earned Rs.1,91,620/-;
Rs.2,12,338/-; Rs.2,65,170/-; and Rs.3,70,124/- respectively. It is submitted
that quantum of compensation awarded to the claimants deserves to be
increased as the learned Tribunal has made wrongful deduction of Rs.1 lac
towards income tax. The same is not permitted as per law. Learned counsel
accordingly prays that the impugned Award be modified.
9. No other argument is made on behalf of ld. counsel for the
parties. I have heard ld. counsel and perused the case file alongwith Lower
FAO Nos. 2090-2019 (O&M)
Court Records in minute detail. I find no merit in the submissions advanced
on behalf of the Insurance Company; as also for the claimants.
10. It is the contention of learned counsel for the Insurance
Company that the offending vehicle was not involved in the accident. It has
been submitted that this is proven from the fact that FIR was registered by
the alleged eyewitness against unknown person and unknown driver; and it
is only in the supplementary statement that details of offending vehicle and
name of Driver have been revealed by the complainant PW3. It has further
been asserted that offending vehicle is not involved in the accident in
question, is also proven from the fact that as per Mechanical Report Ex.P27,
there was no damage caused to the offending vehicle.
11. However, the said arguments of learned counsel for Insurance
Company are liable to be rejected firstly, in view of the fact that in a claim
petition under the Motor Vehicles Act, involvement of the offending vehicle
is to be determined on the basis of preponderance of probabilities and not
in the stringent manner of a criminal trial. In the present case, admittedly,
PW3 has made supplementary statement dated 10.10.2017 Ex.P28 in which
the name of the driver and details of the offending vehicle have been
clearly mentioned. No doubt, the said statement has been made 2 days
after registration of FIR, however, the same cannot be held to be fatal to the
case of the claimants. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in New India Assurance
Co. Ltd. v. Velu, (SC) : Law finder Doc ID # 2685999 decided on 12.12.2024,
has held that attendant circumstances are also to be taken into
DIVYANSHI consideration; which, in the present case are that admittedly, in the
FAO Nos. 2090-2019 (O&M)
accident in question, the author of the FIR Dharminder Paswan had also
suffered injuries. This is evident from the fact that the Postmortem Report
Ex. P9 (at page 179 of the LCR) shows that the body of the deceased was
brought by Harpreet Singh ASI 310/BTA. This would indicate that the pillion
rider PW3 Dharminder Paswan was not in a fit condition to make a
statement to the police. It is also to be seen that after suffering from
trauma of accident, one is not in a correct frame of mind to accurately recall
the details of the offending vehicle and of the driver. As such, in the first
instance, the complainant was unable to provide all the necessary
information. Even in his supplementary statement, PW3 has categorically
stated that at the time of recording of his initial statement on 08.10.2017,
PW3 was not in a fit state of mind due to injuries suffered by him and
anxiety/trauma suffered due to the accident in question. Furthermore, PW3
in his cross-examination (at page 135 of the LCR) has categorically stated
that "After the accident, I was become unconscious and did not tell the
number of the offending vehicle to the police." Thus, non-disclosure of the
identity of the driver, as also details of the offending vehicle by PW3 in the
first instance, cannot be held to prove false implication of the offending
vehicle.
12. The appellant has also relied upon Mechanical Report "Ex.P27".
However, the record reveals that "Ex.P27" is a certified copy of the Inquest
Report made by the police. At this stage, it is submitted by learned counsel
for Insurance Company that Mechanical Report formed part of Inquest
DIVYANSHI Report Ex.P27. However, even after a detailed perusal of the LCR, ld.
FAO Nos. 2090-2019 (O&M)
counsel for the Insurance Company is unable to show that any Mechanical
Report has been brought on record; or the same forms part of Inquest
Report Ex.P27.
13. From the above discussion, I find no error in the findings of
learned Tribunal on Issue No.1 to the effect that accident in question has
been caused due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle of
respondent No.5.
14. As regards quantum of compensation, it has been contended
on behalf of the Insurance Company that income of the deceased has been
taken on the higher side as there is nothing on record to indicate what
business the deceased was doing. The said argument of the appellant is
misplaced as it was the clear pleaded case of the claimants that the
deceased was working as a Contractor of paint and whitewash from which
he was earning Rs.45,000/- p.m. The Income Tax Returns Ex.P-15 to Ex.P-18
also indicate that the deceased was working as a Civil Sub-Contractor.
Income of the deceased as Rs.3,70,124/- p.a. also stands proved from the
Income Tax Return for the Assessment Year 2016-2017 Ex.P18. As such, I
find no error in the monthly income of Rs. 30,843/- as assessed by learned
Tribunal.
15. Argument of learned counsel for the claimants that learned
Tribunal could not have made a deduction of Rs.1 lac towards income tax, is
also incorrect and contrary to the undisputed legal position in this regard. It
has been held by various Courts in plethora of judgments that deduction of
DIVYANSHI income tax is a valid deduction; and it is only sundry allowances et cetera,
FAO Nos. 2090-2019 (O&M)
which cannot be deducted while determining income of the deceased.
Therefore, learned Tribunal has correctly taken income of the deceased as
Rs.30,843/- p.m. Further, age of the deceased was proved to be 32 years
from his Aadhar Card and Pan Card Ex.P2 and Ex.P3 respectively; wherein
his date of birth is mentioned as 01.01.1985. Even as per Postmortem
Report Ex.P9, the age of the deceased was mentioned as 33 years
approximately. Accordingly, Tribunal has correctly made addition of 40%
towards future prospects; and correctly applied multiplier of 16. As there
were 4 claimants, deduction of 1/4th has also been correctly made. The
Tribunal has further awarded Rs.40,000/- to claimant No.1/widow towards
loss of consortium; Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenses; and Rs.15,000/-
towards loss of estate; thereby granting total compensation of
Rs.48,86,130/-.
16. From the above facts, it is clear that a very just and fair
compensation has been awarded to the appellants. Nothing whatsoever has
been shown to this Court that would merit enhancement of the
compensation granted to the appellants. No doubt Chapter-12 of the Act is
a beneficial legislation yet, as cautioned by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the
same cannot be allowed to be treated as a windfall or a source of profit.
Hon'ble Supreme Court in 'State of Haryana Vs. Jasbir Kaur' Law Finder
Doc ID # 64043 and 'Divisional Controller K.S.R.T.C. Vs. Mahadeva Shetty
and another' (2003) 7 SCC 197, has held that the amount of compensation
should be just and reasonable, it should neither be a bonanza nor a source
DIVYANSHI of profit but at the same time it should not be a pittance. In case of
FAO Nos. 2090-2019 (O&M)
'General Manager, KSRTC Vs. Susamma Thomas and others (1994) 2 SCC
176, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that misplaced sympathy,
generosity and benevolence cannot be the guiding factor for determining
the compensation.
17. Keeping in view the above factual and legal position, no
ground is made out to interfere in the impugned Award. Both the appeals
are accordingly dismissed.
18. Pending application(s) if any also stand(s) disposed of.
07.11.2025 (NIDHI GUPTA)
Divyanshi JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
Whether reportable: Yes/No
