[Cites 10, Cited by 0]
Punjab-Haryana High Court
Mamta Goswami And Others vs Jagbir Singh And Others on 23 April, 2026
FAO-3935-2019 Page 1 of 9
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
221
FAO-3935-2019(O&M)
Date of decision: 23.04.2026
Mamta Goswami & Others
...Appellant(s)
Vs.
Jagbir Singh & Others
...Respondent(s)
***
CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA
Present:- Mr. Rohit Duggal, Advocate for
Mr. Kamal Mor, Advocate
for the appellants.
***
NIDHI GUPTA, J.
CM-13278-CII-2019
This is an application under Section 5 of Limitation Act for
condonation of delay of 61 days in filing the appeal.
After going through the contents of the application, which is
supported by affidavit of the appellant No.1, the same is allowed subject to
all just exceptions and delay of 61 days in filing the present appeal is
condoned.
MAIN CASE
Present appeal has been filed by the claimants seeking
enhancement of compensation of Rs.17,43,352/- awarded by the Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal, Karnal (hereinafter 'the learned Tribunal') vide
Award dated 04.10.2018 passed in MACT Case No.106 dated 26.07.2017
filed under Sections 166 and 140 of Motor Vehicles Act (hereinafter "the
Act"). The 4 claimants are the widow, minor son, and parents of deceased
Ramkesh, who was 25 years old at time of accident.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the ld. Tribunal on the basis of
pleadings and oral & documentary evidence adduced by the parties,
concluded that the deceased Ramkesh had died due to the injuries suffered
by him in a motor vehicular accident that took place on 21.03.2017 due to
the rash and negligent driving of Canter bearing registration No.PB-65P-
8004 (hereinafter "the offending vehicle") being driven by respondent No.1,
owned by respondent No.2 and insured by respondent No.4. The said
compensation has been awarded along with interest @ 6% per annum.
Respondents No.1, 2 and 4 were held jointly and severally liable for
payment of compensation amount.
3. Learned counsel for the appellants seeks enhancement of
compensation by submitting that while computing compensation payable to
the appellants, the learned Tribunal has taken income of the deceased on the
lower side. It is submitted that the appellants had led cogent evidence to
prove that deceased was an agriculturist and earning Rs.50,000/- per month
and was also an LIC Agent. However, learned Tribunal has failed to appreciate
the said evidence and has wrongly calculated income of the deceased as only
Rs.8300/- per month.
4. It is further submitted that nothing has been awarded by the
learned Tribunal towards loss of love and affection. Moreover, nothing has
been awarded by way of consortium. Interest is also on the lower side. It is
accordingly prayed that the present appeal be allowed and compensation of
Rs.1 crore be granted to the appellants.
5. No other argument is made on behalf of the appellants. I have
heard learned counsel and perused the case file in detail. I find no merit in
the submissions advanced on behalf of the appellants.
6. Perusal of record of the case shows that it was the pleaded case
of the appellants before the learned Tribunal that prior to the accident,
deceased was an agriculturist and was also working as an LIC Agent and was
earning Rs.50,000/- per month. To prove the said alleged income of the
deceased, the claimants had produced J-Forms (Ex.P7 to Ex.P10) for the
period 2015-16. The appellant had sought to prove the said documentary
evidence by examining PW4 Ramesh Kumar. However, the above-said
documentary and oral evidence was rightly rejected by the learned Tribunal
has PW4 had admitted in his cross-examination that he had brought no
record pertaining to the said J-Forms (Ex.P7 to Ex.P10); and had further
admitted that there is no evidence to show that deceased was owning any
agricultural land; or that he was cultivating any land on lease. Therefore, it
could not be established that the J-Forms produced by the appellant were in
any manner connected with the purported agricultural income of deceased.
7. The contention of the appellants that deceased was also
working as LIC Agent as evident from alleged Certificate (Mark A), was also
rejected by the Tribunal as the same was not proved in accordance with law.
Consequentially, the learned Tribunal had assessed income of the deceased
as Rs.8300/- per month as a casual labourer on the basis of Minimum Wage
Notification issued by the Labour Commissioner. I find no error in the same.
8. Further, even though age of the deceased is mentioned in the
Claim Petition as 29 years, the learned Tribunal had determined age of the
deceased to be 25 years on the basis of his Post-Mortem Report (Ex.P19).
Accordingly, the learned Tribunal had made an addition of 40% towards
future prospects; and correctly applied multiplier of 18. Of the four claimants,
the learned Tribunal had held that only claimant No.1/widow and claimant
No.2/minor child were dependent upon the deceased. Accordingly, learned
Tribunal made a deduction of 1/3rd towards personal expenses. Under the
conventional heads, the learned Tribunal has awarded an amount of
Rs.40,000/- to the claimant No.1 by way of consortium; Rs.15,000/- towards
loss of estate; Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenses; thereby granting total
compensation of Rs.17,43,352/-.
9. It is my view that the aforesaid compensation is just and fair in
the facts and circumstances of the case. 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 & Another Vs. Jasbir Kaur & Others' Law Finder Doc ID #
64043 and 'Divisional Controller K.S.R.T.C. Vs. Mahadeva Shetty', (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 of profit but at the
same time it should not be a pittance. In the case of "General
Manager, KSRTC Vs. Susamma Thomas & Others" 1994 Volume-II SCC
176, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that misplaced sympathy, generosity
and benevolence cannot be the guiding factor for determining compensation.
10. It may further be pointed out that in respect of the accident
dated 21.03.2017, FIR No.146 dated 22.03.2017 under Sections 279, 304A
and 337 IPC was registered at Police Station Gharaunda, Karnal on the
statement made by eyewitness Vishnu, who, in the FIR had reiterated the
stand of the claimants in the Claim Petition. The pleaded case of the
claimants before the Tribunal as mentioned in Para 2 of the Award is that: -
"2. Brief facts of the claim petition are that in the evening of
21.03.2017, Ramkesh, alongwith Vishnu, Sachin, Suresh, Amit,
Harish, Rajesh Kumar, was coming from village Kohand to their
village after attending a marriage in a Scorpio, which was being
driven by its driver Rajesh on a moderate speed, by observing
the traffic rules and when at about 6:00 PM, they reached near
Daana Factory, situated on Kohand-Assandh road, then, a canter
bearing registration No. PB-65P-8004, which was being driven
by its driver i.e. respondent No.1 in a rash and negligent manner
without observing the traffic rules, came from opposite side and
struck into the Scorpio. Due to which, all the occupants received
multiple serious and grievous injuries on the vital parts of their
bodies. Thereafter, they were shifted to Prem Hospital, Panipat,
but on the way, Ramkesh succumbed to the injuries. Thus, the
present accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of
respondent No.1 while driving the canter bearing registration No.
PB-65P-8004. Respondent No.1 being driver, respondent No.2
being owner, respondent No.3 being superdar and respondent
No.4 being insurer of the offending vehicle are jointly and
severally liable to pay the compensation to the claimants."
11. To prove their case before the Tribunal, the claimants have
examined aforementioned eyewitness and injured-claimant Suresh as PW1,
Amit as PW2, and claimant No.1 herself appeared as PW3 before the learned
Tribunal. All of the above-said three eyewitnesses have deposed that the
accident in question had taken place due to the rash and negligent driving of
the offending vehicle by respondent No.1. On the basis of testimony of
Suresh as PW1 and Amit as PW2, who are the alleged eyewitnesses as well
as the injured; and have tendered their affidavits Ex.PW1/A and Ex.PW2/A
respectively, the learned Tribunal had decided issue No.1 in favour of the
claimants; and had held that the accident dated 21.03.2017 had been caused
due to the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by respondent
No.1; and had therefore held the claimants entitled to compensation.
12. It may however be pointed out that in the FIR No.146 dated
22.03.2017, respondent No.1 has been acquitted by the learned Judicial
Magistrate, 1st Class, Karnal vide judgment dated 07.07.2023 as the said
Suresh and Amit while appearing in the criminal trial as PW3 and PW4
respectively, along with other eyewitnesses, have turned hostile. Relevant
findings of the learned JMIC are in Para 9 of the judgment dated 07.07.2023,
which are as under: -
"9. In the present case FIR has been registered on the basis of
complaint of complainant who has been examined by the
prosecution as PW-8. The other witnesses of the alleged
occurrence are Sachin s/o Rajkumar, Suresh So Sh. Ram Kumar,
Amit S/o Sh. Ram Mehar, Harish S/o Sh. Ramphal, Rajesh s/o Sh.
Ramchander and Ramesh So Sh. Hardyal and they have been
also examined. They all have not identified the accused. Learned
APP for the State sought permission to cross-examine them and
they were all cross-examined at length but nothing incriminating
to the present accused has come on record. The identity of the
accused to the alleged incident is not established."
13. A bare reading of the above facts shows that the claimant side
has turned turtle on its previous statement. No doubt, proceedings under the
Act have to be decided on the preponderance of probabilities. However, this
Court cannot shut its eyes in an ostrich like manner to
the starkly diametrically opposite stance taken by the claimants' side in the
criminal trial. Thus, no credence can be attributed to the contrary statements
made by the claimant side before the learned Tribunal. It would therefore
appear that the claimant had deposed falsely before the Tribunal only to get
the compensation. In such a situation, reference may be made to a judgment
of this Court in "United India Insurance Company Limited Vs. Kamla Devi &
Others" (P&H) : Law Finder Doc Id # 251230 wherein it has been held that:
"5. It should still have been possible for the Tribunal to take a deci-
sion uninfluenced by any decision that may have come before the
criminal court. The several decisions which have come about on this
issue are to the effect that a judgment in a criminal court is not bind-
ing on the Tribunal; the non-filing of a FIR is not material; even the
fact of involvement of the vehicle as found by the criminal court is
not binding. While the Tribunal is competent to assess the evidence
which is brought before it and take an independent decision, then
the point that has to be seen is whether there was any evidence
worth its name before the Tribunal to come a finding that the par-
ticular vehicle was involved in the accident. It can be either that the
version of Sitar Mohd. cannot be relied for he has contradicted him-
self wholesale with the version given before the criminal court or
looked for other evidence which was placed before the Court. Alter-
natively if any explanation had been given by the witness as to why
he deposed falsehood before the criminal court, even such an expla-
nation could have been accepted to enter a finding that the accident
took place only involving the particular insured's vehicle. In this
case, no explanation has been given by the witness as to why he
stated before the criminal court that he did not know which vehicle
was involved in the accident. He would, on the other hand, defy that
he ever made any such statement before the criminal court, neces-
sitating the statement made before the criminal court to be exhib-
ited for contradiction before the Tribunal. It must be remembered a
statement in criminal court case by a witness is also on oath. If he
was uttering falsehood, he was liable for perjury. If there was con-
tradiction between the version elicited before the Tribunal to the
statement made before the criminal court then such a witness will
be unworthy of acceptance. The Tribunal could have simply rejected
the whole evidence. If it was going to pick out one line from chief
examination to say that the insured's vehicle was involved in the ac-
cident, the Tribunal was doing something which is not a judicial
function but a travesty of justice.""
14. The above said view has been reiterated by this Court in "Shri
Ram General Insurance Company Limited Vs. Jeeto Devi & Others" FAO-
2231-2014 decided on 03.12.2019, wherein it is held as under:-
"(6) This Court cannot loose sight of the judgment rendered by this
Court in the case of United India Insurance Company Limited ver-
sus Kamla Devi and others, wherein it was specifically held that in
case an eye witness gives totally different version before the Court
conducting trial in criminal case from the statement made by the
said eye witness before the Tribunal, the testimony of such a witness
is unworthy of being accepted and the evidence should be simply
rejected. In fact, the learned Single Bench came down heavily on
such witness and held that the said witness is also liable for perjury."
15. Learned counsel for the appellants is unable to dispute or
controvert the aforesaid facts and findings. Thus, no ground is made out for
enhancement of compensation.
16. In view of the above, present appeal stands dismissed.
17. Pending application(s) if any also stand(s) disposed of.
23.04.2026 (Nidhi Gupta)
Sunena Judge
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
Whether reportable: Yes/No
