[Cites 5, Cited by 0]
Punjab-Haryana High Court
Kamaljeet Kaur And Others vs State Of Punjab Through Its Secretary ... on 13 January, 2026
1
FAO Nos.774 & 2652 of of 2019 (O&M)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
1. FAO No.2652
No.2652 of 2019 (O&M)
KAMALJEET KAUR AND ORS. ...Appellants
llants
Vs
STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS. ...Respondents
...Respondents
2. FAO No.
No.774 of 201
2019 (O&M)
UNIVERSAL SOMPO GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD......Appellant
.....Appellant
Vs
KAMALJEET KAUR AND ORS. ....Respondents
....Respondents
1 The date when the judgment was reserved 17.11.2025
17.11.2025
2 The date when the judgment is pronounced 13.01.2026
3 The date when the judgment is uploaded on the website 14.01.2026
4 Whether only operative part of the judgment is Full
pronounced or whether the full judgment is pronounced
5 The delay, if any, of the pronouncement of full Not applicable
judgment, and reasons thereof.
MANUJA
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJ A
Present: Mr. Ruhani Chadha, Advocate
for the appellants
appellant in (FAO-2652-2019)
2019).
Mr. Pradeep Kumar, Advocate
for the appellant (in FAO-774-2019)
FAO 2019) and
for respondent No. 8 (in FAO-2652-
FAO -2019).
Mr. Balraj Singh, Advocate for
Mr. Nirmaljeet Singh Sidhu, Advocate
for respondent No. 7 (in FAO-774-2019)
FAO 2019) and
for respondent No. 4 (in FAO-2652-
FAO -2019).
Ms. Mallika
Mal Dhillon, Advocate for
Mr. S.S. Sidhu, Advocate
for respondent No. 8 (in FAO-774-2019).
FAO 2019).
Mr. Keshav Partap Singh, Advocate
for respondent Nos.
No . 9 and 10 (in FAO
FAO-774-2019).
Mr. Gunjan Mehta, Addl. A.G., Punjab.
****
HARKESH MANUJA, J.
[1]. Vide this common judgment, the above noted two appeals, bearing
FAO No. 2652 of 2019 and FAO No. 774 of 2019
2019, impugning the award dated
1 of 8
FAO Nos.774 & 2652 of of 2019 (O&M)
05.09.2018 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, S.B.S. Nagar
(hereinafter referred to as "the Tribunal"), shall be decided. For convenience, facts
are being taken from FAO No. 2652 of 2019.
FACTS
[2]. A claim petition came to be filed aatt the instance of
appellants/claimants before the learned Tribunal, praying for grant of
compensation to the tune
tun of Rs.50,00,000/- (Rupees fifty lacs only) on account of
death of Joginder Singh in a vehicular accident which took place on 23.05.2017
while alleging rash and negligent driving of respondent No.4
No.4-driver.
[3]. Learned Tribunal after appraisal of evidence on record held that the
accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of respondent No. 4 as well as
respondent No. 7/driver of the offending vehicles and after assessi
assessing
ng the income of
deceased @ Rs.7,658.52/-
Rs. per month in accordance with minimum wages of an
unskilled labourer in the year 2017, awarded compensation in the following
manner:-
S.No. Heads of Claim Amount (in Rs.)
1. Annual Income of deceased Rs. 90,822/-
2. Add 10% of future prospects Rs. 99,904/-
3. Deduction (1/3rd) Rs. 66,603/-
4. Multiplier (11) Rs. 7,32,633/-
5. Loss of Estate Rs. 15,000/-
6. Funeral Expenses Rs. 15,000/-
7. Loss of consortium to claimant No. 1 Rs. 40,000/-
8. Total Rs. 8,02,633/-
(rounded off to
Rs. 8,03,000/-)
2 of 8
FAO Nos.774 & 2652 of of 2019 (O&M)
Further, liability was jointly and severall
severally
y fastened upon respondent
NoS.4
4 to 7 in equal proportion, i.e. 50:50, and the compensation amount was
ordered to be apportioned and disbursed in the ratio of 60:20:20.
[4]. It is the said award dated 05.09.2018 which has been challenged by
way of present two appeals.
ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE
APPELLANTS/CLAIMANTS.
[5]. Learned counsel for the appellants/claiman
appellants/claimants
ts assailed the award while
submitting that in the given facts, the compensation awarded by the learned
Tribunal was on the lower side. It was further submitted that the deceased was
engaged in agricultural
agricultural activities, earning Rs.
Rs.1,91,210/- per annum, besides
besi
earning Rs.15,000/
15,000/- per month from generator repair work and that the said income
stood duly proved through cogent oral and documentary evidence, including the
testimony of CW-3
CW and J-Forms
Forms placed on record. He further submitted that the
learned Tribunal
al failed to assess the correct dependency and also applied an
incorrect multiplier, resulting in a manifestly unjust and meager award.
Furthermore, he concluded his arguments by submitting that the compensation
awarded under conventional heads i.e. loss of
of estate, funeral expenses and loss of
consortium was also assessed on the lower side, therefore, learned counsel prayed
that the present appeal be allowed and compensation be enhanced, as per latest
decisions on the subject.
ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE
INSURANCE COMPANY
[6]. Per contra, learned counsel for the appellant/Insurance Company
submitted that the learned Tribunal gravely erred in fastening the liability to the
extent of 50% upon the appellant/Insurance
appellant/Insurance Company despite there being no
3 of 8
FAO Nos.774 & 2652 of of 2019 (O&M)
cogent or reliable evidence to establish any negligence on the part of the insured
vehicle or its driver. He further submitted that CW
CW-2, the sole eye-witness
witness and
author of the FIR, categorically deposed that the accide
accident
nt occurred solely due to
the rash and negligent driving of respondent No. 7, Harnek Singh, who was driving
the Punjab Roadways bus and was the first to contribute to the accident. Therefore,
he prayed that the impugned Award be set aside and the appellant be absolved of
its unjustified liability to pay compensation.
DISCUSSION
[7]. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the paper
books of the cases. I find force in the arguments advanced by the learned counsel
for the appellants/claimants
appellants/claimant
QUESTION OF INCOME ASSESSED
[8]. The primary controversy which arises for consideration is with regard
to the assessment of income of the deceased. A perusal of the record reveals that
the appellants/claimants specifically pleaded and led evidence to es
establish
tablish that the
deceased was not a mere unskilled labourer, as assumed by the learned Tribunal,
but was engaged in agricultural activities and was also carrying on generator repair
work. In support thereof, the appellants examined Vishal Anand as CW
CW-3 and also
placed on record J-Forms
J Forms pertaining to agricultural produce, which clearly
reflected the annual agricultural income of the deceased to the tune of
Rs.1,91,210/-.. In addition thereto, oral evidence was led to the effect that the
deceased
ed was earning about Rs. 15,000/-
15,000/ per month from generator repair work.
Once the claimants had produced documentary evidence in the form of JJ-Forms,
Forms,
which are official records prepared in terms of statutory requirement, coupled with
unrebutted oral testimony,
testimony, the same could not have been brushed aside merely on
4 of 8
FAO Nos.774 & 2652 of of 2019 (O&M)
conjectures. It is well settled that in motor accident claim cases, the standard of
proof is one of preponderance of probabilities and not proof beyond reasonable
doubt.
[8.1]. Accordingly, this Court holds that the income of the deceased
deserved to be assessed by taking into consideration the agricultural income duly
proved on record. Even if the income from generator repair work is excluded for
want of precise documentary corroboration, the ann
annual
ual agricultural income of
₹1,91,210/- stood established and ought to have been accepted. Therefore, this
Court in its humble opinion and in the facts and circumstances of the present case
assessess the income of deceased as Rs.15,715/-
Rs. - per month in consonance
nce with the
records available on the file.
[9]. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of "Smt. Sarla Verma and
others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another," reported as 2009(3) RCR
(Civil) 77, was pleased to hold that in case the number of depende
dependent
nt family
members was 2 to 3, 1/3rd needs to be deducted as personal expenses from the total
income. Relevant para of the judgment is culled out as under:
under:-
"30. Though in some cases the deduction to be made towards personal
and living expenses is calculated on the basis of units indicated in Trilok
Chandra[(1996) 4 SCC 362], the general practice is to apply standardized
deductions. Having considered several subsequent decisions of this Court,
we are of the view that where the deceased was married, deduction
towards personal and living expenses of the deceased, should be one
one-third
third
(1/3rd) where the number of dependent family members is 2 to 3, one-
one
fourth (1/4th) where the number of dependent family members is 4 to 6,
and one-fifth
one (1/5th) where the number
umber of dependent family member
exceeds six."
5 of 8
FAO Nos.774 & 2652 of of 2019 (O&M)
QUESTION OF COMPENSATION UNDER CONVENTIONAL
HEADS
[10]. Furthermore, in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in
Smt. Sarla Verma's case (supra),
(supra) "National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi
and others" reported as (2017) 16 SCC 680 and "United India Insurance Co.Ltd.
vs. Satinder Kaur", reported as (2021) 11 SCC 780, compensation awarded under
conventional heads are also required to be assessed accordingly.
Appellants/claimants are thus, held entitled
led for Rs.
Rs.18,000/- as compensation under
funeral head and Rs. 18,000/-
18,000/ towards loss of estate. Loss of consortium is
assessed to the tune of Rs. 1,44,000/- (Rs. 48,000 x 33)) as the appellants, being
spouse and parents of deceased are also entitled for spou
spousal
sal and filial consortium.
CONCLUSION
[11]. In view of the discussion made hereinabove, the appellant/claimant is held
entitled for the grant of compensation in the following manner:
manner:-
S.No. Nature Amount
(in Rs.)
1. Annual Income of Deceased Rs. 1,88,580/-
1,88,580/
2. Deduction (1/3rd) Rs. 62,860/--
3. Net Income (Rs. 1,88,580 - Rs. 62,860) Rs. 1,25,720/-
1,25,720/
4. Future Prospects (10%) Rs. 12,572/--
5. Total Income (1,23,200 + 49,280) Rs. 1,38,292/-
1,38,292/
6. Loss of Incomee after applying multiplier of 13 Rs. 17,97,796/-
17,97,796
as per the age of 50 years (1,38,292 x 13
13)
7. Loss of estate Rs. 18,000/--
8. Funeral Expenses Rs. 18,000/--
9. Loss of Consortium (48,000 x 33) Rs. 1,44,000/-
1,44,000
10. Total compensation Rs. 19,77,796/-
19,77,796/
11. Amount Awarded by the Tribunal Rs. 8,03,000/-
8,03,000
6 of 8
FAO Nos.774 & 2652 of of 2019 (O&M)
12. Enhanced Compensation Rs. 11,74,796/-
11,74,796/
[12]. As regards the issue of liability raised by the appellant/Insurance
Company, this Court finds no substance in the said objection. The findings
recorded by the learned Tribunal on the question of negligence are based upon
proper and judicious appreciation of the evidence on record and do not suffer from
any perversity or misreading warranting interference in appellate jurisdiction. The
ocular testimony of the eye-witness,
eye witness, duly supported by the FIR, site plan and other
attendant circumstances, clearly establishes that the accident occurred due to the
rash and negligent driving of both the offending vehicles, thereby constituting a
case of composite negligence.
[12.1]. It is a settled proposition of law that where the negligence of two or
more drivers results in the same accident, the liability is joint and several, and the
claimant is not required to establish the extent of negligence attributable to each
tort-feasor. In "T.O. Anthony v. Karvarnan (2008) 3 SCC 748", the Hon'ble
Supreme Court authoritatively held that in cases of composite negligence, the
claimant is entitled to recover the entire compensation from any one of the joint
tort-feasors.
feasors. The said principle was further reiterated and explained by the Hon'ble
Apex Court in "Khenyei v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. (2015) 9 SCC 273",
wherein it was held that apportionment of liabi
liability between joint tort-feasors
feasors is
only for the purpose of their inter se adjustment and does not dilute the right of the
claimant to recover full compensation from any of them.
[12.2]. Applying the aforesaid settled legal position to the facts of the pre
present
sent
case, this Court finds that the fastening of joint and several liability upon the
drivers, owners and insurers of the offending vehicles by the learned Tribunal is
7 of 8
FAO Nos.774 & 2652 of of 2019 (O&M)
wholly justified and in consonance with law. The appellant
appellant-Insurance
Insurance Company
has failed to demonstrate any legal infirmity or evidentiary deficiency in the
findings on negligence. Consequently, the determination of liability, as recorded by
the learned Tribunal, is upheld in toto.
[13]. The grant of interest @ 7.5% per annum is not equitabl
equitablee and just in
view of the observations made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in "Smt. Supe Dei
and others vs. National Insurance Company Limited and other, reported as
(2009) (4) SCC 513 approved in a subsequent judgment titled as "Puttamma and
others vs. K.L. Narayana Reddy and another, 2014 (1) RCR (Civil) 443, thus, the
interest is enhanced to 9% per annum on the amount of compensation awarded to
the claimants from the date of institution of claim petition till its realization. In
case the said amount is not
not paid within three months, the same shall be payable
thereafter along with 12% interest from the expiry of period of three months from
today. Needless to mention here that the amount of compensation already paid to
the claimant shall be deducted from the enhanced compensation.
[14]. Accordingly, the appeal filed at the instance of appellants/claimants is
disposed of with the aforesaid modification of the award passed by the learned
Tribunal and the appeal filed at the instance of appellant/respondent-Insurance
nsurance
Company stands dismissed in the aforesaid terms.
[15]. Pending miscellaneous applications(s) if any, shall also stand disposed
of.
(HARKESH MANUJA)
January 13, 2026
2026 JUDGE
Atik
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether reportable Yes/No
8 of 8
