[Cites 13, Cited by 0]
Punjab-Haryana High Court
National Insurance Company Limited vs Rani And Others on 24 April, 2026
Author: Sudeepti Sharma
Bench: Sudeepti Sharma
FAO-872-2022 (O&M)
XOBJC-98-2022 (O&M) -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
FAO-872-2022 (O&M) &
XOBJC-98-2022 (O&M)
NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.
..Appellant
Versus
RANI AND ORS.
..Respondents
Reserved on: 17.04.2026
Pronounced on: 24.04.2026
Uploaded on : 27.04.2026
Whether only the operative part of the judgment is pronounced? NO
Whether full judgment is pronounced? YES
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA
Present: Mr. Vipul Sharma, Advocate
for Mr. Paul S. Saini, Advocate
for the appellant-Insurance Company.
Mr. Parminder Singh, Advocate
for respondent Nos.1 to 3/cross-objectors.
SUDEEPTI SHARMA, J.
FAO-872-2022
1. The present appeal has been filed by the appellant-Insurance
company against the award dated 26.10.2021 passed in a claim petition filed
under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 by the Motor Accident
Claims Tribunal, Karnal (for short, 'the Tribunal'), wherein the claim petition
filed by the claimants was allowed and appellant-Insurance company was
made liable to pay the compensation.
authenticity of this order/judgment.
FAO-872-2022 (O&M)
XOBJC-98-2022 (O&M) -2-
XOBJC-98-2022
2. The present cross-objections have been preferred by cross-
objector/claimants against the award dated 26.10.2021 passed by the learned
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Karnal in the claim petition filed under
Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, for enhancement of
compensation, granted to them to the tune of Rs.57,90,000/- along with
interest @ 6 % per annum on account of injuries suffered by Balraj in the
accident.
3. Since the appeal filed by the Insurance Company and the cross-
objections filed by the cross-objectors/claimants are arising out of the same
award dated 26.10.2021 passed by the learned Tribunal, therefore, FAO-872-
2022 and XOBJC-98-2022 are decided vide this common judgment.
BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE
4. Brief facts of the case are that on 21.12.2017 at about 9.20
A.M., the claimant-injured Randhir Singh had boarded the bus bearing
registration no. HR45-B-6252, which was being driven by its driver i.e.
respondent no.1 namely Balraj Singh from Karnal to Chandigarh. When the
said bus reached near Nilokheri Jhilmil Dhaba on G.T. Road, Karnal, then
the driver of the said bus hit the said bus into a truck bearing registration no.
HR55-P-0165. Both the said drivers of the vehicles i.e. driver of the bus as
well as the driver of the truck were negligent and careless as they were not
observing the traffic rules. The driver of the bus was driving the bus in rash
and negligent manner without observing the traffic rules and he did not see
the truck parked on the G.T. Road. Similarly, the driver of the truck was also
careless and negligent as he had parked his truck on the G.T. Road without
MOHD AYUB any indicator as well as light. Due to this accident, the driver of the bus
authenticity of this order/judgment.
FAO-872-2022 (O&M)
XOBJC-98-2022 (O&M) -3-
along with so many passengers sustained serious, multiple and grievous
injuries. It is further pleaded that the claimant-injured was sitting in the bus
just behind the seat of the driver. Due to the impact of this accident, the
claimant-injured sustained serious, multiple and grievous injuries including
the fracture on his right knee, right leg and right thigh as well as on his back
bone and various other abrasions on various parts of his body. The other
passengers had also sustained serious, multiple and grievous injuries in the
accident in question. After the accident, the claimant-injured was taken to
General Hospital, Karnal where he was medico legally examined vide MLR
No.KJ-90/17 dated 21.12.2017 and thereafter due to his serious, multiple
and grievous injuries, he was shifted to Medline Hospital, Duggal Colony,
Karnal for treatment. He has spent an amount of Rs.4,00,000/- on his
treatment, medicines, hospitalization, doctor fees, transportation, special diet
etc. Operation on his leg was also done by the Doctor. Thereafter, FIR
bearing no. 482 dated 21.12.2017 under sections 283 and 304-A IPC was
registered with the Police Station Butana, Karnal. It is further pleaded that at
the time of accident, claimant-injured was having 30 years of age. He was
running a shop of tyre puncture situated at Sambhli Road, Nissing, District
Karnal and was earning a sum of Rs.15,000/- per month. He was the only
bread earner of his family. But due to the serious, multiple and grievous
injuries sustained in the accident in question, he has become crippled and he
is even unable to move, walk, sit, climb the stair etc. He is still under
treatment. It is prayed that a sum of Rs.20,00,000/- as compensation along
with interest at the rate of 18% per annum from the date of accident till its
realization may kindly be awarded in favour of the claimant and against the
MOHD AYUB respondents along with cost.
authenticity of this order/judgment.
FAO-872-2022 (O&M)
XOBJC-98-2022 (O&M) -4-
5. Upon notice of the claim petition, respondents appeared and
contested the claim petition by filing their separate written replies denying
the factum of accident/compensation.
6. From the pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal framed the
following issues:-
"1. Whether the accident in question took place on 21.12.2017
at about 9.20 A.M. near Zhilmil Dhaba Nilokheri, G.T. Road, in
the area of P.S. Butana, District Karnal on account of rash and
negligent driving of offending vehicle i.e. Ashok Leyland Truck
bearing registration no. HR55-P-0165 by respondent Bhim Ram
resulting into injuries to Randhir Singh, Pooja Tanwar and
death of Balraj Singh?OPP.
2. If issue no. 1 is proved, whether the claimants are entitled to
claim any compensation, if so, how much and from whom?OPP.
3. Whether the vehicle in question was being driven in violation
of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy and/or
provisions of the Motor Vehicle Act? OPR.
4. Whether the claim petition is not maintainable in the present
form?OPR.
5. Whether the claimants have no locus standi and cause of
action to maintain the present claim petitions against the
answering respondents?OPR.
6. Whether the present claim petitions are bad for mis joinder
and non joinder of necessary parties?OPR.
7. Relief. "
7. Thereafter, both the parties led their evidence in support of their
respective pleadings.
authenticity of this order/judgment.
FAO-872-2022 (O&M)
XOBJC-98-2022 (O&M) -5-
8. After taking into consideration the pleadings and the evidence
on record, the learned Tribunal awarded compensation to the claimants.
Hence, the present appeal.
SUBMISSIONS OF LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:
9. Learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company contends
that the learned Tribunal has erred in holding that accident occurred due to
sole negligence of the driver of offending vehicle. He furthermore, contends
that infact the accident was a result of contributory negligence of both the
drivers. He furthermore contends that learned Tribunal has erred in law by
failing to deduct the amount received by the dependants of the deceased
under the Haryana Compassionate Assistance to the Dependants of
Deceased Government Employees Rules, 2006. He further contends that in
view of the settled legal position, the said amount is liable to be deducted
while computing compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, and
consequently, the awarded compensation deserves to be reduced. Therefore,
he prays that the present appeal be allowed.
10. Per contra learned counsel for claimants/cross-objectors
contents that the compensation awarded by learned Tribunal is on the lower
side and deserves to be enhanced. Therefore, he prays that the present appeal
be dismissed and cross-objection be allowed.
11. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
whole case file with their able assistance.
12. The relevant portion of the award is reproduced as under:-
"Issue No.1
21. Onus to prove this issue is on the claimants. In order
to prove this issue, the claimants have examined Neetu
authenticity of this order/judgment.
FAO-872-2022 (O&M)
XOBJC-98-2022 (O&M) -6-
son of Rajpal as PW3 who is the author of the FIR cum
eye witness to the accident in question as Conductor, who
while appearing in the witness box, in his affidavit
Ex.PW3/A has deposed in detail about the manner in
which accident was caused by the respondent no.3 Bhim
Ram (first petition and respondent no.1 of second and
third petition) while parking the offending truck near the
divider of road and negligent manner. He has specifically
deposed that on 21.12.2017 at about 9.20 A.M., Balraj
Singh (since deceased) was driving the Haryana
Roadways bus bearing registration no. HR45-B-6252
which was going from Karnal to Chandigarh. He was
posted as Conductor on the said bus. Balraj Singh was
driving the said bus at moderate speed on his due left side
of the road. When the said bus reached near Nilokheri
Jhilmil Dhaba on G.T. Road, Karnal, then, a container
bearing registration no. HR55-P-0165 was
standing/parked on the road near the road divider. The
driver of the said container had not taken any precautions
while parking his container in the middle of the road. He
had not put on the parking lights or dipper nor he had
placed any reflector near stranded vehicle. It was fogy
day and the visibility was very poor and it gave an
impression that the container was moving on the road. He
has further deposed that by the time, Balraj Singh noticed
that the container was not moving. But it was parked on
the road, then, he tried his best to avoid the accident in
question and applied sudden brakes and swerved his
vehicle. However, while passing through the said
container, the bus hit against the container from back
side. He further deposed that the accident in question
took place due to the sole rash and negligent act of the
driver of the container, who had parked the container in
the middle of the G.T. Road without taking any
authenticity of this order/judgment.
FAO-872-2022 (O&M)
XOBJC-98-2022 (O&M) -7-
precautions. Due to this accident, Balraj Singh received
several multiple and grievous injuries and he succumbed
to his injuries later on.
22. Smt. Pooja Tanwar widow of Bharat Singh,
(claimantinjured of the second petition) appeared as PW1
and has tendered her affidavit Ex.PW1/A.
23. Smt. Rani widow of Balraj Singh, (claimant no.1 of
the third petition) appeared as PW2 and she has tendered
her affidavit Ex.PW2/A.
24. Randhir Singh, (claimant-injured of the first petition)
appeared as PW5 and he has tendered his affidavit
Ex.PW5/A. In their respective affidavits, all the abovesaid
petitioners have deposed about the manner of the
accident caused by the respondent-driver Bhim Ram
while parked the container/truck bearing registration
no.HR55-P-0165 near divider of the road without any
indicators or navigator lights.
25. In order of substantiate the case, Anmol Verma, owner
of Three Aces Global Logistics Pvt.Ltd. as RW1 and
tendered his duly sworn affidavit Ex.RW1/A. In his
affidavit, he has deposed that petitioners concocted a
false story in claim petitions just to get compensation by
mentioning wrong facts and concealing true and material
facts from the court and a false case has been registered
by the police. The respondent-driver Bhim Ram appeared
in the witness box as RW2 and in his affidavit Ex.RW2/A,
he has deposed that there is no fault on his part in driving
the vehicle in question but a concocted story has been
forwarded just to get compensation the claimants and he
has been falsely impleaded as a party in the present
petitions and a false case has been registered against him
by the police. In his cross-examination,he has admitted
that he is facing trial for causing the present accident and
charges have been framed against him. He further stated
authenticity of this order/judgment.
FAO-872-2022 (O&M)
XOBJC-98-2022 (O&M) -8-
that he has not filed any appeal or revision framing of
charges and also not made any representation to any
higher authority regarding his false involvement in the
present case.
26. Shri K.D.Goyal, learned counsel for respondent-
National Insurance Company has argued that it has come
on record that the alleged accident had occurred when
truck bearing No.HR-55P-0165 was already parked on
the spot where the accident took place but the driver of
the bus by driving the same in rash and negligent manner
hit stationed truck without observing it and this fact is
admitted by PW5 Randhir Singh who has testified in his
affidavit Ex.PW5/A that driver of the bus was driving the
same in rash, negligent and careless manner without
observing the traffic rules and he did not see the said
truck parked on the G.T.Road. Had driver of bus noticed
the stationed truck from a very reasonable distance, he
could have applied the brakes of the bus and accident
could have been avoided but driver of the bus was
negligent in causing the accident in which he died on the
spot and other persons received injuries. Learned counsel
for insurance company has placed reliance on Raj Kaur
and Ors.Versus Gurnam Singh and Ors. (Punjab and
Haryana) Law Finder Doc Id # 716949.
27. Whereas learned counsel for petitioners-claimants
Rani etc. relying upon The New India Assurance
Company Ltd. Versus Smt. Kalpana & Others 2007(1)
R.C.R.(Civil) 772 (S.C.) has argued that at the time of
accident, the visibility was very poor due to heavy fog, the
offending truck was parked near divider of the road
without putting on the back lights, reflectors, indicators
and some kind of obstruction to show the presence of the
truck on the road and PWs also stated that the stationed
truck was giving impression that some vehicle was going
authenticity of this order/judgment.
FAO-872-2022 (O&M)
XOBJC-98-2022 (O&M) -9-
ahead of the bus. Had the driver parked the truck by
giving navigator lights and reflectors, then accident could
have been avoided because bus driver tried his level best
to pass on the stationed truck but he had no sufficient
time to notice the same thus, right side of the bus while
crossing the truck struck against the stationed truck
resulting into the death of bus driver at the spot and other
passengers received multiple injuries including
petitioners. Thus, it was a sole negligency on the part of
truck driver and not due to negligency on the part of bus
driver. In support of his contentions, learned counsel for
petitioners has relied upon The Oriental Insurance
Company Limited Versus Harshpreet Kaur and others
(Punjab and Haryana), Law Finder Doc Id # 787702.
28. After giving thoughtful consideration to learned
counsel for both the sides, it is noticed that no doubt,
PW5 Randhir Singh in his affidavit Ex.PW5/A has
testified that bus driver was driving the same in rash,
negligent and careless manner without observing the
traffic rules and he did not see the said truck parked on
the G.T.Road which was parked by its driver rashly,
negligently and carefully without any indicator as well as
light and without following the traffic rules, whereas
petitioner PW1 Pooja Tanwar and PW3 Neetu,
Conductor of the bus have categorically stated that the
driver of the truck had parked the truck on the G.T.Road
near divider near Zilmil Dhaba rashly, negligently and
carelessly without giving any reflector and back lights on.
Since it was a fogy weather, thus, Balraj, driver of the bus
could not have reasonably expected that truck would
remain parked in the middle of the G.T.Road and by the
time bus driver noticed the stationed truck, he tried his
best to avoid the accident and applied brakes and
sewered his vehicle but despite that, bus hit against the
authenticity of this order/judgment.
FAO-872-2022 (O&M)
XOBJC-98-2022 (O&M) -10-
stationed truck due to sole rash and negligent act of the
truck driver. Both petitioner PW1 Pooja Tanwar and PW5
Randhir Singh were travelling in the bus and they have
categorically denied the suggestion of learned counsel for
respondent-insurance company that the truck
No.HR05P-0165 was parked on the kacha portion. Both
these PWs were sitting on the front seat of the bus. PW3
Neetu, Conductor of the bus has stated in his cross-
examination that he was standing near front seats with
his face towards the front glass of the vehicle and thus
had full view of the road. He has categorically stated that
it was fogy day. Driver of the bus was driving the bus at a
slow speed and very consciously and also denied the
suggestion of learned counsel for respondent-insurance
company that container driver had put green bushes
around the vehicle to caution the other road users. He
has categorically stated that they did not find any such
bushes around the vehicle. PW5 Randhir Singh has also
denied the suggestion of learned counsel for respondent-
insurance company that truck driver has given
indications as well as lights due to the fog. PW5 Randhir
Singh has also denied the suggestion that accident had
occurred due to negligency of drivers of both vehicles.
Learned counsel for respondent-insurance company has
contended that it was a case of contributory negligency of
process of both the vehicles and relied upon United India
Insurance Company Limited Versus Rani Kaushal and
others, 2106 (3) PLR 771. In that case it was held by the
Hon'ble High Court that apart from two conflicting
versions, there was a reference in the FIR that the truck
which was parked in the middle of the road did not have
parking lights or reflectors. In this case also, it is
mentioned in the FIR Ex.P44 that the "canter driver has
parked the canter near divider of the road without giving
authenticity of this order/judgment.
FAO-872-2022 (O&M)
XOBJC-98-2022 (O&M) -11-
any reflector." As the bus driver noticed the stationed
truck, he tried to cross the bus from left side of truck but it
struck with back side of the truck, hence, the ratio of law
laid down in Raj Kaur and others' case (Supra) relied
upon by learned counsel for respondent-insurance
company is not applicable upon the facts and
circumstances of the present case. No doubt, in that case,
accident of the car with stationed truck parked aside toll
barrier occurred, the said truck was parked without lights
and deceased driver had not exercised caution to slow
down the car. In the reported case, truck was parked near
the toll barrier and it was not a fogy day. In the presence
case, since it was foggy day, the truck driver must have
vigilant while stationed his truck on the spot. The rulings
relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioners are
fully applicable to the facts of the present case.
29. In Oriental Insurance Company Limited's case
(Supra) relied upon by learned counsel for petitioners
Rani etc., the visibility was poor due to heavy fog and
driver left the vehicle parked in the middle of the road
without putting on back lights, reflectors, indicators. Our
Hon'ble High Court held that the drive of the stationed
vehicle responsible for the accident.
30. In The New India Assurance Company Ltd.'s case
(Supra) relied upon by learned counsel for petitioners
Rani etc., the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India held that
the driver of the stationed truck responsible for causing
the accident as he had already parked the truck on road
in running condition without indicator and a car dashed
against the truck and car driver died on the spot.
31. Thus, keeping in view the testimonies of the PWs and
the ruling relied upon by learned counsel for petitioners
Rani etc., it is held that the truck driver had parked the
truck without any indicator, navigator lights and this act
authenticity of this order/judgment.
FAO-872-2022 (O&M)
XOBJC-98-2022 (O&M) -12-
of the truck driver was rash and negligent which results
into the death of bus driver and other passengers got
injuries due to the accident.
32. In Girdhari Lal Vs. Radhey Shyam and Ors. 1993 (2)
P.L.R. 109, it is held that in motor vehicle accident claim
cases, the approach to find out who was rash and
negligent in causing the accident is different from the one
when a person is challaned in a criminal court on a
culpable charge. The burden of proof on the petitioner is
not that heavy as is required to prove a criminal charge
for rash and negligent driving of the vehicle.
33. In the present case, the fact that the police has
challaned respondent/driver Bhim for the commission of
offences punishable under Sections 283 and 304-A as is
evident from report under section 173 Cr.P.C. Ex.P45
shows that the investigating agency had reached the
conclusion that respondent No.1 had caused the accident
by rash and negligent act. Respondent-driver Bhim Singh
of container No.HR-55P0165 did not make any complaint
to higher police officers regarding his false implication in
the criminal case.
34. Keeping in view the aforesaid discussion, there is no
reason to disbelieve the unrebutted testimonies of PW3
Neetu and PW5 Randhir Singh coupled with other
circumstances come on record, it is amply proved on
record that accident was caused due to the rash and
negligent driving of truck No.HR-55P-0165 by
respondent-driver Bhim Ram resulting into death of
Balraj Singh and injuries to petitioners Randhir Singh
and Pooja Tanwar.
In these terms, issue stands answered in favour of
petitioners.
Claim petition No.67 of 2021 titled as Rani and others
Versus Bhim Ram and others:
authenticity of this order/judgment.
FAO-872-2022 (O&M)
XOBJC-98-2022 (O&M) -13-
51. For assessment of compensation in case of death, the
petitioners have to establish three facts i.e. the age of the
deceased, income of the deceased and number of
dependents. It is well settled that multiplier method is the
most logically sound method for ascertainment of the loss
of dependency for which compensation is to be awarded.
While adopting this method, the Tribunal is required to
take the following steps:-
(i) ascertaining the multiplicand;
(ii) ascertaining the multiplier;
(iii) actual calculation.
52. In view of the findings on issue No.1, it is proved that
Balraj Singh died in the accident. Now, the question
arises as to what amount of compensation the petitioners
are entitled for and from whom.
53. PW2 Rani has deposed that her husband was 48 years
of age at the time of accident and he was employed as bus
driver with Haryana Roadway and was drawing salary of
Rs.53,445/- per months. Besides this, he was earning an
average Rs.25,000/- per month towards overtime which
he has been consistently earning for the last several years
and was a part of his regular income. She further deposed
that a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- was spent on transportation,
funeral and last rites of the deceased.
54. PW6 Paras Moni, Clerk has admitted that as per the
pay slip/salary slip Ex.PW6/A for the month of November,
2017, Balraj Singh was drawing a gross salary of
Rs.53,448/- per month. PW4 Bhagwan Dev, Overtime
Clerk in his cross-examination has admitted that Balraj
was not drawing any overtime. Therefore, it is held that
deceased Balraj Singh was drawing salary of Rs.53,448/-
per month at the time of his death.
55. Learned counsel for petitioner Rani etc. has
contended that deceased Balraj Singh was a bus driver
authenticity of this order/judgment.
FAO-872-2022 (O&M)
XOBJC-98-2022 (O&M) -14-
and thus, he used to earn Rs.7,000/- to 15,000/- per
month as overtime allowance besides his salary and he
drawn my attention on the detail of overtime allowance of
deceased as Ex.PW4/A and Ex.PW4/B which have been
proved by PW4 Bhagwan Dev, Overtime Clerk. As per
statement of PW4 Bhagwan Dev, the deceased Balraj was
not driving overtime on every day for every month but as
per him the detail of overtime is given in Ex.PW4/A.
Perusal of the aforesaid document reveals that the
amount of overtime was not uniform or fixed but variable
from month to month. As the amount of overtime was
variable and thus, it would be appropriate if the amount
of overtime is taken lum-sum as Rs.3000/- per month.
Thus, total income of deceased Balraj from salary
including overtime is Rs.56,448/- per month(Rs.53,448/-
salary + Rs.3000 overtime). Annual income of deceased
comes out to Rs.6,77,376/-.
56. It is contended by learned counsel for insurance
company that as per the Haryana Compassionate
Assistance to the Dependents of Deceased Government
Employees Rules, 2006, petitioner Rani is getting
Rs.55,656/- per month as salary on behalf of deceased
husband Balraj Singh and therefore, this amount is to be
deducted form the total compensation if awarded and in
support of his contention, he has relied upon Reliance
General Insurance Company Ltd. Versus Shashi Sharma
and Ors. 2016 ACJ 2723 (S.C.).
57. Whereas learned counsel for respondent-insurance
company refuted this arguments that the aforesaid ruling
relied upon by learned counsel for the respondent-
insurance company has already been overruled by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Sebastiani Lakra and
others Versus National Insurance Co.Ltd. and another
2019 ACJ 34 holding that the amount received by the
authenticity of this order/judgment.
FAO-872-2022 (O&M)
XOBJC-98-2022 (O&M) -15-
legal heirs of deceased under Employee's Benefits
Scheme would not be deducted while computing the loss
of income.
58. I have gone through both the rulings relied upon
learned counsel for the parties. The Hon'ble Supreme
Court of India while deciding the appeal of Sebastiani
Lakra and others (Supra) observed that the Employee's
Family Benefit Scheme is totally different from the rulings
which were under consideration of this court in Reliance
General Insurance Company Ltd. Versus Shashi Sharma
(Supra). It was observed under this scheme that nominee
or legal heirs of the deceased employee have to deposit
the entire amount of gratuity and all other benefits
payable to them on the death of employee. It was further
held that the deduction cannot be allowed from the
amount of compensation either on account of insurance
or on account of pensionary benefits or gratuity or grant
of employment to a kin of the deceased because all these
amounts are earned by the deceased on account of
contractual relations entered into by him with others.
These amounts accrued to dependents or the legal heirs
of the deceased on account of his death in a motor vehicle
accident. The Hon'ble Supreme Court was of the view
that natural corollary is that the advantage which
accrues to the estate of the deceased or to his dependents
as a result of some contract or act which the deceased
performed in his lifetime cannot be said to be the outcome
or result of the death of deceased even though these
amounts may go into the hands of the dependents only
after his death. Whereas the amounts of pension and
gratuity are paid on account of the service rendered by
the deceased to his employer and hence pension and
gratuity are the property of the deceased which are
payable on death of an employee, whatever be the cause
authenticity of this order/judgment.
FAO-872-2022 (O&M)
XOBJC-98-2022 (O&M) -16-
of death. Thus, ruling relied u0pon by learned counsel for
the petitioners Rani etc. is fully applicable to the facts of
the present case.
59. It is not in dispute that the last drawn salary of the
deceased including D.A. was Rs.53,445/- per month. On
this amount, the deceased would definitely have been
paying some income tax. Since exact calculation of the
income tax has not been given, thus, I found it proper to
deduct Rs.1,500/- per month for this purpose. Thus,
income of the deceased comes out to Rs.51,945/-. Now
adding Rs.3000/- per month as overtime income, it comes
to Rs.54,945/ per months say Rs.55,000/- per month.
Thus, annual income of deceased comes to Rs.6,60,000/-
(Rs.55,000/- x 12).
60. Now the question arises as to what should be the
quantum of deduction on account of personal expenses of
the deceased. In view of the law laid down in Sarla Verma
and others Versus Delhi Transport Corporation (Supra),
1/3 of income of the deceased is deducted towards his
personal and living expenses as there are three
petitioners/dependents of deceased, while remaining 2/3
is taken as contribution to the family. Doing so, the
annual loss of the income to the family comes to
Rs.4,40,000/- (Rs.6,60,000/- minus Rs.2,20,000/-).
61. Since the deceased Balraj Singh was 48/49 years old
as is clear from post mortem report Ex.P46, therefore, as
per Sarla Verma and others Versus Delhi Transport
Corporation (Supra),the suitable multiplier will be 13.
On computation, the compensation on account of
dependency comes to Rs.57,20,000/- (Rs.4,40,000/- x 13).
62. Apart from this, in view of National Insurance
Company Limited Versus Pranay Sethi and others(Supra),
petitioners are entitled to Rs.70,000/- on account of
conventional heads namely loss of estate Rs.15,000/-, loss
authenticity of this order/judgment.
FAO-872-2022 (O&M)
XOBJC-98-2022 (O&M) -17-
of consortium Rs.40,000/- and funeral expenses
Rs.15,000/-.
The total amount of compensation of petitioners
comes to Rs.57,90,000/- (Rs.57,20,000/-+ Rs.70,000/-).
This issue is decided in favour of the petitioners
and against the respondents."
13. The findings returned by the learned Tribunal are well-reasoned,
based on proper appreciation of evidence, and do not call for any
interference by this Court.
14. A cumulative reading of the testimonies of PW1 Pooja Tanwar,
PW3 Neetu (Conductor), and PW5 Randhir Singh reveals a consistent and
trustworthy account of the manner in which the accident occurred. These
witnesses have categorically deposed that the offending truck was stationed
on the G.T. Road, near the divider, without any indicators, reflectors, or
parking lights. Their presence in the front portion of the bus afforded them a
clear and unobstructed view of the road ahead. Despite extensive cross-
examination, their version remains unshaken and inspires confidence.
15. The learned Tribunal has rightly taken into consideration the
prevailing foggy conditions at the time of the occurrence, which materially
impaired visibility. In such circumstances, a heightened duty of care was cast
upon the driver of the stationary vehicle. The act of parking a heavy vehicle
in the middle of a highway, particularly near the divider and without any
warning signals, constitutes a clear act of rashness and negligence.
16. On the other hand, the evidence on record indicates that the bus
driver was proceeding cautiously and at a moderate speed. Upon noticing the
stationary truck, he made a bona fide attempt to avoid the collision by
MOHD AYUB applying brakes and maneuvering the vehicle. However, given the sudden
authenticity of this order/judgment.
FAO-872-2022 (O&M)
XOBJC-98-2022 (O&M) -18-
obstruction and poor visibility, the accident could not be averted. In these
circumstances, no element of contributory negligence can be attributed to the
bus driver.
17. The contention of the appellant-insurance company that the
case involves contributory negligence has been rightly rejected by the
Tribunal. The judgments relied upon by the appellant have been
appropriately distinguished on facts. Conversely, the legal principles laid
down in the precedents cited on behalf of the claimants, particularly in cases
involving vehicles left unattended on the roadway without proper indication
in conditions of poor visibility, are squarely applicable.
18. Moreover, the registration of a criminal case and submission of
the report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. against the truck driver further
corroborate the claimants' version. The absence of any material to show that
the said prosecution was challenged or that the driver was falsely implicated
lends additional support to the conclusion drawn by the Tribunal.
19. It is trite that in proceedings under the Motor Vehicles Act, the
standard of proof is one of preponderance of probabilities and not proof
beyond reasonable doubt. Applying this settled principle, and in light of the
unrebutted ocular evidence coupled with attendant circumstances, this Court
is satisfied that the Tribunal has rightly concluded that the accident occurred
solely due to the rash and negligent act of the driver of the offending truck.
20. Accordingly, the finding of the learned Tribunal that the
accident in question took place due to the sole negligence of the truck driver,
who had parked the vehicle in the middle of the highway without any
indication or warning, is hereby affirmed.
authenticity of this order/judgment.
FAO-872-2022 (O&M)
XOBJC-98-2022 (O&M) -19-
21. So far as the contention raised by the learned counsel for the
appellant-Insurance Company regarding deduction of the amount received
under the Haryana Compassionate Assistance to the Dependants of
Deceased Government Employees Rules, 2006 is concerned, this Court
finds considerable merit in the said submission. This Court, in FAO No.
1558 of 2012, titled as "Balwan Singh And Others Vs Jagbir And Others",
decided on 16.10.2025, has categorically held that where the dependants of a
deceased Government employee have already been extended compensatory
benefits by the employer under the aforesaid Rules, they are not entitled to
receive compensation to the same extent under the Motor Vehicles Act,
1988.
22. The relevant extract of the said judgment reads as under:
"11. Coming to the contention of the claimants
regarding the amount deducted from the total
compensation on the account of the amount received by
the dependents of the deceased under the Haryana
Compassionate Assistance to the Dependants of
Deceased Government Employees Rules, 2006, from the
total compensation awarded. This contention of the
claimants have no bearing in the eyes of law as it is
settled principle of law that deductions can be made in
the compensation to avoid double benefit to the
claimants.
12. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Reliance General
Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Shashi Sharma, 2016(9) SCC 627
held that the dependents of the deceased already
benefitted by the compensatory amount received from the
employer under Haryana Compassionate Assistance to
the Dependants of Deceased Government Employees
authenticity of this order/judgment.
FAO-872-2022 (O&M)
XOBJC-98-2022 (O&M) -20-
Rules, 2006, will not be entitled to the same amount
under 1988 Act.
13. The relevant portion of the judgment is reproduced
as under:
"15. Be that as it may, the term
compensation has not been defined in
the Act of 1988. By interpretative
process, it has been understood to
mean to recompense the claimants for
the possible loss suffered or likely to
be suffered due to sudden and untimely
death of their family member as a
result of motor accident. Two cardinal
principles run through the provisions
of the Motor Vehicles Act of 1988 in
the matter of determination of
compensation. Firstly, the measure of
compensation must be just and
adequate; and secondly, no double
benefit should be passed on to the
claimants in the matter of award of
compensation. Section 168 of the Act
of 1988 makes the first principle
explicit. Sub-section (1) of that
provision makes it clear that the
amount of compensation must be just.
The word "just" means - fair,
adequate, and reasonable. It has been
derived from the Latin word "justus",
connoting right and fair. In para 7 of
State of Haryana & Anr. v. Jasbir Kaur
& Ors., 2003(4) RCR (Civil) 140 :
(2003) 7 SCC 484, it has been held
that expression "just" denotes that the
authenticity of this order/judgment.
FAO-872-2022 (O&M)
XOBJC-98-2022 (O&M) -21-
amount must be equitable, fair,
reasonable and not arbitrary. In para
16 of Smt. Sarla Verma & Ors. v. Delhi
Transport Corporation & Anr.,
2009(3) RCR (Civil) 77 : 2009(3)
Recent Apex Judgments (R.A.J.) 373 :
(2009) 6 SCC 121, this Court has
observed that the compensation "is not
intended to be a bonanza, largesse or
source of profit". That however may
depend upon facts and circumstances
of each case, as to what amount would
be a just compensation.
16. The principle discernable from the
exposition in Helen C. Rebello's case
(supra) is that if the amount "would be
due to the dependants of the deceased
even otherwise", the same shall not be
deductible from the compensation
amount payable under the Act of 1988.
At the same time, it must be borne in
mind that loss of income is a
significant head under which
compensation is claimed in terms of
the Act of 1988. The component of
quantum of "loss of income", inter
alia, can be "pay and wages" which
otherwise would have been earned by
the deceased employee if he had
survived the injury caused to him due
to motor accident. If the dependents of
the deceased employee, however, were
to be compensated by the employer in
that behalf, as is predicated by the
authenticity of this order/judgment.
FAO-872-2022 (O&M)
XOBJC-98-2022 (O&M) -22-
Rules of 2006 - to grant
compassionate assistance by way of
ex-gratia financial assistance on
compassionate grounds to the
dependents of the deceased
Government employee who dies in
harness, it is unfathomable that the
dependents can still be permitted to
claim the same amount as a possible
or likely loss of income to be suffered
by them to maintain a claim for
compensation under the Act of 1988."
14. The same principle is reiterated in the latest
judgment passed by Apex Court in Krishna and others
Vs. Tek Chand and others, 2025(2) PLR 95.
Relevant paragraphs of the Krishna's case (supra)
are extracted hereinbelow:
"6. We find that the observations of
this Court in Sebastiani Lakra (supra)
distinguishing the case of Shashi
Sharma (supra) clearly applies to the
case in hand. It is observed that the
amount of Rs. 31,37,665/- (Rupees
Thirty One Lakhs, Thirty Seven
Thousand and Six Hundred and Sixty
Five only) was paid to the dependents
of the deceased-employee who are the
petitioners herein under the aforesaid
Rules since the said Rule was by way
of compassionate assistance owing to
the sudden death of the employee in
harness for any reason whatsoever
including as a result of a road traffic
authenticity of this order/judgment.
FAO-872-2022 (O&M)
XOBJC-98-2022 (O&M) -23-
accident. This is in order to
compensate the loss of the bread
earner of the family who dies in
harness.
In the case of a motor vehicle
accidents, when negligence is proved,
loss of dependency is compensated for
the very same reason. In our view,
there cannot be a duplication in
payments or a windfall owing to a
misfortune. In another words, on the
death of the person in harness, owing
to a road traffic accident the
dependents of a deceased cannot be
doubly benefited as opposed to those
who are dependents of a deceased who
dies owing to illness or any other
reason under the Rules formulated by
the Haryana Government."
15. In light of the aforesaid authoritative
pronouncements, the deduction made by the learned
Tribunal towards the compassionate assistance is liable
to be upheld. Consequently, the claimants are entitled to
the compensation amount only to the extent of
enhancement made by this Court."
23. In view of the settled legal position, it is beyond any pale of
doubt that the amount received by the dependants under the Haryana
Compassionate Assistance to the dependants of Deceased Government
Employees Rules, 2006, is required to be deducted while determining
compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
authenticity of this order/judgment.
FAO-872-2022 (O&M)
XOBJC-98-2022 (O&M) -24-
24. Applying the aforesaid principle to the facts of the present case,
it is evident from the record that the widow of the deceased (Balraj), shall
continue to receive the same till the date on which the deceased would have
attained the age of superannuation. Consequently the amount received by
dependant of deceased under Haryana Compassionate Assistance to the
dependants of Deceased Government Employees Rules, 2006 is liable to be
deducted.
25. A further perusal of the award reveals that the learned Tribunal
has rightly assessed the monthly income of the deceased-Balraj as
Rs.55,000/- after taking into account salary certificate as well as income tax
as applicable at the time of accident. Consequently, no inference is
warranted on this count.
26. A further perusal of the award reveals that the learned Tribunal
has erred in not awarding any amount toward future prospects and amount
awarded for loss of consortium is on lower side, therefore, the award
requires inference of this Court.
27. Consequently, the compensation is reworked as under:-
Sr. Heads Compensation Awarded
No.
1 Monthly Income Rs.55,000/-
2 Future prospects @ 30% Rs.16,500/- (30% of 55000)
3 Deduction towards personal Rs.23,834/- (71,500 X 1/3)
4 Total Income Rs.47,666/- (71,500-23,834)
6 Annual Dependency Rs.74,85,896/- ( 47,666 X 12 X 13)
7 Loss of Estate Rs.15,000/-
8 Funeral Expenses Rs.15,000 /-
authenticity of this order/judgment.
FAO-872-2022 (O&M)
XOBJC-98-2022 (O&M) -25-
9 Loss of Consortium Rs.1,20,000/-
Parental : 2 X 40,000
Spousal : 1 x 40,000
10 Total Compensation Rs.75,85,896/-
11 Deduction Rs.46,75,104/-
on account of compassionate
assistance to dependants
12 Amount to be granted Rs.29,10,792/- (75,85,896-
46,75,104)
28. So far as the interest part is concerned, as held by Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Dara Singh @ Dhara Banjara Vs. Shyam Singh Varma
2019 ACJ 3176 and R.Valli and Others VS. Tamil Nadu State Transport
Corporation (2022) 5 Supreme Court Cases 107, the claimants/cross-
objectors are granted the interest @ 9% per annum on the amount of total
compensation from the date of filing of claim petition till the date of its
realization.
29. Vide order dated 25.03.2022, Coordinate Bench of this Court
had stayed the recovery of amount beyond Rs.20,00,000/-. Consequently, the
appellant-Insurance Company is directed to deposit the remaining amount
along with interest @ 9 % per annum with the Tribunal within a period of
two months from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment. The Tribunal
is directed to disburse the same to the claimants/cross-objectors in their bank
accounts. The claimants/cross-objectors are directed to furnish their bank
account details to the Tribunal.
30. In view of the above, the present appeal is partly allowed and
cross-objections are dismissed to the above extent
31. The statutory amount of Rs.25,000/- deposited by the appellant-
Insurance Company at the time of admission of the appeal, is ordered to be
refunded to it.
authenticity of this order/judgment.
FAO-872-2022 (O&M)
XOBJC-98-2022 (O&M) -26-
32. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, are also disposed of.
April 24th, 2026 (SUDEEPTI SHARMA)
Ayub/Sahil JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
authenticity of this order/judgment.
