[Cites 11, Cited by 0]
Punjab-Haryana High Court
Devi Lal And Others vs Lakhwinder Singh And Others on 23 April, 2026
FAO-6477-2019 Page 1 of 11
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
223
FAO-6477-2019(O&M)
Date of decision: 23.04.2026
Devi Lal & Others
...Appellant(s)
Vs.
Lakhwinder Singh & Others
...Respondent(s)
***
CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA
Present:- Mr. Gaurav Aggarwal, Advocate
for the appellants.
Mr. R.C. Gupta, Advocate
for respondent No.3.
***
NIDHI GUPTA, J.
CM-22003-CII-2019
This is an application under Section 5 of Limitation Act for
condonation of delay of 90 days in filing the appeal.
After going through the contents of the application, which is
supported by affidavit of appellant No.5, the same is allowed subject to all
just exceptions and delay of 90 days in filing the present appeal is condoned.
MAIN CASE
Present appeal has been filed by the claimants seeking
enhancement of compensation of Rs.4,15,000/- awarded by the Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal, Sirsa (hereinafter 'the learned Tribunal') vide
Award dated 29.03.2019 passed in CIS No.MACP/110 dated 28.05.2018
filed under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act (hereinafter "the Act"). The
7 claimants are the 76-year-old husband, 35-year-old son, 41-year-old
married daughter, 39-year-old married daughter, 37-year-old married
daughter, 33-year-old married daughter and 31-year-old married daughter
of deceased Savitri Devi, who was 70 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 Savitri Devi had died due to the injuries
suffered by her in a motor vehicular accident that took place on 22.03.2018
due to the rash and negligent driving of XUV Car bearing registration No.PB-
13-AV-2929 (hereinafter "the offending vehicle") being driven by
respondent No.1, owned by respondent No.2 and insured by respondent
No.3. The said compensation has been awarded along with interest @ 7.5%
per annum. Respondents were held jointly and severally liable for payment
of compensation amount.
3. Learned counsel for the appellants seeks enhancement of
compensation by submitting that income of the deceased has been taken on
the lower side as only Rs.6,000/- per month. It is submitted that the learned
Tribunal in the impugned Award has acknowledged that in similar cases
income of the deceased housewife has been assessed on the higher side as
Rs.9,000/- per month. Therefore, no ground was made out to specifically
assess notional income of the deceased as only Rs.6,000/- per month.
4. It is further submitted that the learned Tribunal erred in not
awarding suitable compensation on account of mental pain and suffering,
loss of the estate, the same being on a lower side. The untimely death of the
deceased left the claimants in a state of deep shock and mental pain. In these
facts and circumstances of the case, the appellants deserve to be allowed
much more than what has been allowed by the learned Tribunal on these
accounts as well. Therefore, the amount assessed by the learned Tribunal is
liable to be enhanced on these accounts as well.
5. Even under the other heads, suitable compensation has not
been awarded. Nothing has been awarded by way of litigation costs, which
have been erroneously ignored and liable to be suitably awarded. It is
accordingly prayed that the present appeal be allowed and impugned Award
be modified.
6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent no.3 opposes the
submissions advanced on behalf of the appellants and submits that the
impugned Award suffers from no error; and the present appeal deserves to
be dismissed.
7. No other argument is made on behalf of the parties. 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.
8. Perusal of record of the case shows that deceased Savitri Devi
was a 70-year-old housewife. Although in the Claim Petition, it was pleaded
that deceased was 63 years old at the time of death and in the Post-Mortem
Report (Ex.P3), her age is mentioned as 65 years, however, as per the
Aadhaar Card (Ex.R1), date of birth of the deceased was shown to be
01.01.1945. In the Voter List for the year 2019 (Ex.RW3/A), age of the
deceased was mentioned to be 71 years. Therefore, age of the deceased was
correctly determined by the Tribunal to be 70 years at the time of accident.
9. A perusal of the Award reveals that the learned Tribunal has
considered in detail the relevant case law while determining the value to be
attributed to the gratuitous services rendered by a housewife. After
examining every aspect of the matter and keeping in view the age of the
deceased, the Tribunal had assessed value of services of the deceased as a
housewife to be Rs.6000/- per month. I find no error in the same.
10. Learned counsel for the appellants has argued that in other
similar matters, value of services of a deceased housewife have been taken
to be Rs.9000/-. However, as distinguished by the learned Tribunal in Para 28
of the impugned Award; in other cases, the deceased housewives were of
younger ages; whereas in the present case, the deceased housewife is a
geriatric of 70 years. Therefore, services rendered by her would be of limited
nature. In fact, in a typical Indian household, where the children are married,
women such as the deceased would retire and allow the daughters-in-law to
take over the household. As such, I find no error in the notional income as
assessed by the learned Tribunal as Rs.6000/- per month.
11. No deduction was made towards personal expenses. Multiplier
of 5 has been correctly applied in keeping with the law laid down by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in "Sarla Verma Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation"
(2009) AIR (SC) 3104 Law Finder Doc ID # 188882. Learned Tribunal has
further awarded an amount of Rs.40,000/- for loss of consortium;
Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenses; thereby granting total compensation
of Rs.4,15,000/-, which was to be apportioned as follows: -
Devi Lal (Husband) Rs.1,15,000/- (including consortium)
Prahlad (Son) Rs.50,000/-
Santosh (Daughter Rs.50,000/-
Maya Devi (Daughter) Rs.50,000/-
Menu Devi (Daughter) Rs.50,000/-
Indra (Daughter) Rs.50,000/-
Manju (Daughter) Rs.50,000/-
12. It is my view that claimants No.3 to 7 being married daughters
of the deceased were not entitled to compensation in view of judgment of
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Deep Shikha v. National Insurance Company
Ltd., (SC) : Law Finder Doc ID # 2729764; wherein it is held that married
daughter of the deceased is not entitled to compensation, unless financial
dependency is proved. In the present case, no such financial dependence of
the daughters upon the deceased has been proved by the appellants.
13. Consequentially, in the fact and circumstances of the case, I find
the compensation as awarded by the learned Tribunal to be just and fair. 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 Supreme Court has held that misplaced sympathy,
generosity and benevolence cannot be the guiding factor for determining the
compensation.
14. It may further be pointed out that in respect of the accident
dated 22.03.2018, an FIR No.33 dated 22.03.2018 under Sections 279 and
304-A IPC was registered at Police Station Ding on the basis of statement
made by eyewitness Devi Lal/claimant No.1/husband of the deceased. In the
FIR Devi Lal 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. It is case of claimants that on 22.03.2018, claimant Devi Lal
and his wife Savitri Devi (now deceased) had gone to village
Kanwarpura to meet their daughter Manju Bala. They were
returning home on foot. Respondent No.1 came there driving
XUV car bearing registration No.PB-13AV-2929 in a rash and
negligent manner near Sangar Sadha and hit Savitri Devi. She
sustained injuries. Devi Lal and his son-in-law Sandeep Kumar
who had come to see off them shifted her to Civil Hospital, Sirsa.
She died of injuries there."
15. Eyewitness Devi Lal/claimant No.1/complainant has appeared
before the learned Tribunal as PW1 and has tendered in evidence his affidavit
(Ex.PW1/A), wherein he has reiterated the afore-noted contents of the Claim
Petition. PW1 has further deposed before the Tribunal that the accident in
question had been caused due to the rash and negligent driving of the
offending vehicle by respondent no.1. Accordingly, on the basis of the
testimony of alleged eyewitness, PW1/claimant no.1, the Tribunal had
decided issue No.1 in favour of the claimants; and had held that the accident
dated 22.03.2018 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.
16. It may, however, be pointed out that in the above said FIR, the
respondent No.1 has been acquitted by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st
Class, Sirsa vide judgment dated 08.08.2024 as
eyewitness/complainant/claimant No.1/Devi Lal while appearing in the
criminal trial as PW2 has turned hostile. Evidence of PW2 Devi Lal is recorded
in Para 7 of the judgment dated 08.08.2024, which reads as follows:-
"7. PW-2 / Devi Lal deposed that he and his wife Savitri Devi had
came to village Kawarpura to meet their younger daughter
Manju. After meeting their daughter they started for village
Mangalia and were crossing the road at NH-9 when a car hit in
his wife due to which she received injuries and was declared
dead. He could not recollect the registration number of the
offending car. He proved his statement Ex.PW1/A. In the cross-
examination he could not tell the time of the accident. He further
could not tell from which side the offending car came. He stated
that the car was being driven by owner but police had falsely
implicated driver. The police had shown him the driver and
owner of the car in the police station. He denied the suggestion
that he is deposing falsely.
XXX XXX XXX
19. In the examination in chief the complainant deposed that he
had crossed the road and his wife was behind whereas in the
complaint Ex.PW1/A, he had stated that his wife ahead of him.
Further, the complainant did not deposed about the registration
number of the offending vehicle and also did not identified the
accused person as the driver of the offending vehicle. In the
cross-examination he has specifically stated that the offending
vehicle was being driving by owner whereas police has falsely
implicated the driver of the vehicle. PW6 Sandeep has deposed
that he reached the place of accident immediately as he had just
dropped his mother in law and found number plate PB13AV2929
at the spot. In the cross- examination he stated that he did not
saw the accident and the number plate allegedly found at the
spot was also not complete. Otherwise also, the accused person
is not the owner of the vehicle no.PW13AV2929. So, in view of
the testimony of complainant and PW6 prosecution has failed to
prove that on 22.03.2018 accused person was driving the vehicle
no.PB13AV2929, and that too in rash and negligent manner and
caused accident of wife of complainant due to which she died."
17. 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 claimants 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
himself wholesale with the version given before the criminal court
or looked for other evidence which was placed before the Court. Al-
ternatively if any explanation had been given by the witness as to
why he deposed falsehood before the criminal court, even such an
explanation 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 ve-
hicle was involved in the accident. He would, on the other hand, defy
that he ever made any such statement before the criminal court,
necessitating the statement made before the criminal court to be
exhibited for contradiction before the Tribunal. It must be remem-
bered 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
contradiction 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.""
18. 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."
19. Learned counsel for the appellants is unable to dispute or
controvert the aforesaid facts and findings. Thus, in view of the above
discussion, no ground is made out for enhancement of compensation.
20. The present appeal accordingly, stands dismissed.
21. 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
