[Cites 3, Cited by 0]
Punjab-Haryana High Court
National Ins.Co.Ltd. (O&M) vs Surjeet Kaur & Ors. on 27 April, 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
I. FAO-1590-2002
Na onal Insurance Company Limited.
. . . . Appellant
Vs.
Surjeet Kaur and others
. . . . Respondents
****
II. FAO-5012-2002
Surjeet Kaur and others
. . . . Appellants
Vs.
Rajinder Singh and others
. . . . Respondents
****
Reserved on: 23.04.2026
Pronounced on: 27.04.2026
Pronounced Fully/Operative Part: Fully
****
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA
****
Present: - Mr. Lalit Garg, Advocate,
for the appellant in FAO-1590-2002 and
for respondent No.3 in FAO-5012-2002
Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Sharma, Advocate,
for the appellants in FAO-5012-2002 and
for respondents No.1 to 6 in FAO-1590-2002
Service of respondent No.7 in FAO-1590-2002 dispensed with vide
order dated 18.01.2024.
None for respondent No.8 in FAO-1590-2002.
****
DEEPAK GUPTA, J.
The present judgment disposes of two connected appeals
arising out of the same award dated 27.11.2001 passed by the learned Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal, Panipat. One appeal has been preferred by the insurer
of the offending vehicle seeking setting aside of the award, whereas the other
has been filed by the claimants seeking enhancement of the compensation
awarded.
VIVEK PAHWA
2026.04.27 16:01
I agree to specified portions of
this document
Chandigarh
FAOs-1590 & 5012-2002 2026:PHHC:063461
2. The facts, in brief, are that on 26.04.2001, Jeevan Singh was
proceeding towards a bus stop on a Jhota-buggi. When he reached near
Gurdwara Dera Baba Jodhpur Sachiyar on GT Road, an auto-rickshaw bearing
registration No. HR-46A-5722, driven by respondent No.1, came from the side of
Samalkha and struck against the Jhota-buggi. As a result of the impact, the Jhota-
buggi overturned and a heavy machine loaded thereon fell upon Jeevan Singh,
causing multiple injuries. He was initially taken to Civil Hospital, Panipat and
thereafter referred to PGI Rohtak, where he succumbed to the injuries sustained
in the accident.
3. The claim petition was filed by the widow and five children of the
deceased seeking compensation on account of his death. The respondents
contested the claim petition, primarily on the ground that the accident occurred
due to the negligence of the deceased himself, as the machine loaded on the
Jhota-buggi was not properly secured and fell due to imbalance.
4. Upon appreciation of the evidence, the learned Tribunal held that
the accident had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the offending
vehicle and awarded compensation of ₹8,15,000/- in favour of the claimants,
fastening liability jointly and severally upon the driver, owner and insurer.
5. Assailing the said award, learned counsel for the insurer has argued
that the Tribunal erred in holding the driver of the offending vehicle negligent. It
has been contended that the accident occurred due to improper loading of the
machine on the Jhota-buggi and, thus, the deceased himself was responsible. It
has further been argued that the income of the deceased has been assessed on
the higher side and requires downward revision.
6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the claimants has supported
the finding on negligence and has sought enhancement of compensation.
7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having gone
through the record with their able assistance, this Court finds that the finding
recorded by the learned Tribunal on the issue of negligence does not warrant
any interference. The Tribunal has placed reliance upon the testimony of PW1,
VIVEK PAHWA
2026.04.27 16:01
I agree to specified portions of
this document
Chandigarh
FAOs-1590 & 5012-2002 2026:PHHC:063461
an eyewitness to the occurrence, who has categorically deposed that the
offending auto-rickshaw struck against the Jhota-buggi, resulting in the accident.
His testimony is consistent and inspires confidence.
8. The version put forth by the driver of the offending vehicle does not
inspire confidence, particularly in view of his admission during cross-
examination that he had been challaned and was facing trial under Sections 279
and 304-A IPC. The registration of a criminal case and filing of challan against the
driver, though not conclusive, lends corroboration to the case of the claimants,
especially in proceedings under the Motor Vehicles Act, where the standard of
proof is that of preponderance of probabilities.
9. In these circumstances, this Court is satisfied that the learned
Tribunal rightly held that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving
of the offending vehicle. The said finding is accordingly affirmed.
10. Coming to the question of quantum of compensation, it is not in
dispute that the age of the deceased was between 40 to 45 years. Therefore, the
multiplier of 14, as applied by the Tribunal, is appropriate. There being six
dependents, deduction of one-fourth towards personal expenses is also in
consonance with the settled principles.
11. However, this Court finds merit in the contention raised by the
insurer with regard to the assessment of income. The Tribunal has assessed the
monthly income of the deceased at ₹6,000/- in the absence of any documentary
evidence. The deceased was an agriculturist and, at the relevant time in April
2001, even the minimum wages in the State of Haryana were below ₹2,000/- per
month. In such circumstances, the assessment of income at ₹6,000/- per month
appears excessive and not supported by the evidence on record.
12. Accordingly, the monthly income of the deceased is re-assessed at
₹2,500/-, which translates to ₹30,000/- per annum. Since the deceased was
between 40 to 50 years of age, an addition of 25% towards future prospects is
warranted, thereby enhancing the annual income to ₹37,500/-. After deducting
one-fourth towards personal expenses, the annual loss of dependency comes to
VIVEK PAHWA
2026.04.27 16:01
I agree to specified portions of
this document
Chandigarh
FAOs-1590 & 5012-2002 2026:PHHC:063461
₹28,125/-. Applying the multiplier of 14, the total loss of dependency is
computed at ₹3,93,750/-.
13. In addition thereto, the claimants are entitled to compensation
under conventional heads. Keeping in view that there are six claimants, and also
the period of accident, an amount of ₹20,000/- each is awarded towards loss of
consortium, totaling ₹1,20,000/-. A further sum of ₹10,000/- each is awarded
towards loss of estate and funeral expenses. Thus, the total compensation
payable comes to ₹5,33,750/-.
14. Since the Tribunal had already awarded a sum of ₹8,15,000/-, the
compensation stands reduced by ₹2,81,250/-. Consequently, the appeal filed by
the Insurance Company is partly allowed, whereas the appeal filed by the
claimants seeking enhancement is dismissed.
15. However, this Court cannot lose sight of the fact that the accident
in question occurred more than two decades ago and the award was passed in
the year 2001. Considering the long lapse of time and the beneficial object of the
legislation, it would not be just and proper to direct recovery of the excess
amount from the claimants, if already disbursed. Accordingly, it is ordered that
no recovery shall be effected from the claimants on account of the reduction in
compensation.
16. Both the appeals stand disposed of in the aforesaid terms. A copy
of this judgment be placed on the file of the connected case.
(DEEPAK GUPTA)
JUDGE
27.04.2026
Vivek
Whether Speaking/reasoned Yes
Whether reportable No
Uploaded on: 27. 04.2026
VIVEK PAHWA
2026.04.27 16:01
I agree to specified portions of
this document
Chandigarh
