[Cites 10, Cited by 0]
Punjab-Haryana High Court
Salochana vs Jaswant Singh on 12 March, 2026
F.A.O. No. 2068 of 2003(O&M) and
F.A.O. No. 2282 of 2003(O&M) 1 / 11
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
(223) Reserved on: 06.03.2026
Pronounced on: 12.03.2026
Uploaded on: 12.03.2026
1. F.A.O. No. 2068 of 2003(O&M)
Chhoti and Another ...Appellants
Versus
Jaswant Singh and Others ...Respondents
AND
2. F.A.O. No. 2282 of 2003(O&M)
Salochna and Others ...Appellants
Versus
Jaswant Singh and Others ...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIRINDER AGGARWAL
Present: Mr. Atul Jain, Advocate
for the appellant.
Mr. Ajay Singla, Advocate
for the respondent no.3/Insurance Company.
VIRINDER AGGARWAL, J.
1. These two connected appeals have been preferred by the appellants under
Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, challenging the awards dated
15.02.2003 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Patiala. The
claimants have filed the present appeals seeking enhancement of the
compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal and also challenging the finding
of the Tribunal whereby the case was held to be one of contributory negligence
to the extent of 50% each. Since both appeals arise out of the same award and
F.A.O. No. 2068 of 2003(O&M) and
F.A.O. No. 2282 of 2003(O&M) 2 / 11
arise out of the same motor vehicular accident, they are being disposed of by
this common judgment.
BACKGROUND FACTS
2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that on 29.07.1999, Kaka Singh
along with Sham Lal was travelling on motorcycle bearing registration No.
PCX-130 from Patran towards village Duggal. Sham Lal was driving the
motorcycle whereas Kaka Singh was the pillion rider. When they reached on
Patran-Sangrur road near Gurudwara Duggal Khurd, a Tata Tempo 407 bearing
registration No. PB-13B-1286, driven by respondent No.1 Jaswant Singh in a
rash and negligent manner, came from the opposite side and struck against the
motorcycle. As a result of the said accident, both Kaka Singh and Sham Lal
sustained fatal injuries and died. A criminal case was also registered against the
driver of the offending vehicle vide FIR No.187 dated 29.07.1999 under
Sections 279, 427, 304-A IPC at Police Station Patran. The legal representatives
of the deceased filed separate claim petitions under Section 166 of the Motor
Vehicles Act seeking compensation on account of the death of the deceased
persons.
3. The learned Tribunal, after considering the evidence on record, came to
the conclusion that the accident involved the motorcycle driven by Sham Lal
and the Tata Tempo driven by respondent No.1 Jaswant Singh. However, the
learned Tribunal held that the claimants had failed to conclusively establish that
the accident occurred solely due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver
of the Tata Tempo. The learned Tribunal noticed that the alleged eye-witness
had stated that he reached the spot after the accident and that the driver of the
offending vehicle had been acquitted in the criminal case. On the said basis, the
F.A.O. No. 2068 of 2003(O&M) and
F.A.O. No. 2282 of 2003(O&M) 3 / 11
learned Tribunal held the case to be one of contributory negligence to the extent
of 50% each between the driver of the Tata Tempo and the driver of the
motorcycle. Consequently, the learned Tribunal assessed compensation in the
claim petition relating to the death of Kaka Singh at ₹84,000, but after applying
the deduction of 50% on account of contributory negligence, awarded a sum of
₹42,000 to the claimants. Similarly, in the claim petition relating to the death of
Sham Lal, the learned Tribunal assessed the compensation at ₹1,68,000 and
after applying the deduction of 50%, awarded a sum of ₹84,000 to the claimants
along with interest.
CONTENTIONS
4. Learned counsel for the appellants has argued that the finding of the
learned Tribunal regarding contributory negligence is wholly erroneous and
contrary to the evidence available on record. It is submitted that the learned
Tribunal wrongly relied upon the judgment of acquittal passed by the criminal
court against the driver of the offending vehicle, which was neither duly proved
nor exhibited in accordance with law. It is further argued that the learned
Tribunal ignored the material fact that the driver of the offending vehicle did
not even appear before the learned Tribunal and was proceeded against ex parte,
and therefore no adverse inference could have been drawn against the
claimants. Learned counsel has further contended that the compensation
assessed by the learned Tribunal is on the lower side as the income of the
deceased was taken inadequately and proper multiplier and conventional heads
were not correctly applied. Accordingly, it has been prayed that the finding
regarding contributory negligence be set aside and the compensation awarded
by the learned Tribunal be suitably enhanced.
F.A.O. No. 2068 of 2003(O&M) and
F.A.O. No. 2282 of 2003(O&M) 4 / 11
5. Per contra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent-
Insurance Company has supported the award passed by the learned Tribunal. It
is submitted that the learned Tribunal has appreciated the evidence on record in
its proper perspective and rightly held that the accident involved negligence on
the part of both the vehicles. It is further contended that the amount awarded by
the learned Tribunal is just and reasonable and does not call for any interference
by this Court.
OBSERVATIONS AND FINDINGS
6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have carefully gone
through the record of the case.
NEGLIGENCE
7. The primary question that arises for consideration before this Court is
whether the learned Tribunal was justified in holding that the case was one of
contributory negligence to the extent of 50% each. The learned Tribunal
primarily relied upon the fact that the driver of the offending vehicle had been
acquitted in the criminal case and that the eye-witness examined before the
Tribunal had reached the place of occurrence after the accident had taken place.
On that basis, the Tribunal concluded that the negligence of the driver of the
tempo was not proved conclusively and therefore apportioned negligence
equally between the two vehicles.
8. In the considered opinion of this Court, the approach adopted by the
learned Tribunal cannot be sustained. Firstly, the judgment of acquittal passed
in the criminal case cannot be treated as conclusive proof for determining
negligence in a motor accident claim case. It is now well settled that the
standard of proof in proceedings under the Motor Vehicles Act is entirely
F.A.O. No. 2068 of 2003(O&M) and
F.A.O. No. 2282 of 2003(O&M) 5 / 11
different from that required in criminal proceedings. The claimants are only
required to establish their case on the touchstone of preponderance of
probabilities and not beyond reasonable doubt. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Bimla Devi and others vs. Himachal Road Transport Corporation and others,
2009 (13) SCC 530, held that strict proof of negligence is not required in motor
accident claim cases and the learned Tribunal can draw reasonable inferences
from the facts and circumstances of the case. In Motor vehicle accident claim
petitions, the learned Tribunals must adopt a pragmatic approach while dealing
with accident cases and should not succumb to technicalities which may defeat
the object of the beneficial legislation. It is also well settled that the acquittal of
an accused in a criminal case does not automatically absolve him from civil
liability in claim proceedings arising out of the same accident.
9. Secondly, it is not disputed that the driver of the offending vehicle did
not appear before the learned Tribunal and was proceeded against ex-parte.
When a party, who is in the best position to explain the circumstances of the
accident, fails to step into the witness box, the learned Tribunal ought to have
drawn an adverse inference against the said driver rather than attributing
negligence to the deceased persons. The driver of the Tata Tempo was the
person who could have given the most material account of the manner in which
the accident occurred. His failure to appear and depose before the learned
Tribunal deprived the tribunal of the best possible version from the side of the
respondents. In such circumstances, the settled principle of law is that an
adverse inference can legitimately be drawn against such a party who withholds
himself from the witness box.
F.A.O. No. 2068 of 2003(O&M) and
F.A.O. No. 2282 of 2003(O&M) 6 / 11
10. It is also noteworthy that the respondents did not lead any independent
evidence to establish that the accident had occurred due to the negligence of the
motorcycle driver or that the deceased persons had in any manner contributed to
the occurrence. The mere fact that the alleged eye-witness reached the spot after
the accident or that the driver of the offending vehicle was acquitted in the
criminal proceedings cannot, by itself, be made a basis to attribute contributory
negligence to the deceased persons in a claim petition under the Motor Vehicles
Act, where the standard of proof is that of preponderance of probabilities and
not proof beyond reasonable doubt. The finding of contributory negligence
recorded by the learned Tribunal appears to have been based more on
conjectures than on any substantive evidence available on record. In the
absence of any cogent evidence showing negligence on the part of the
motorcycle driver, the learned Tribunal was not justified in equally apportioning
negligence between the drivers of both vehicles.
11. Furthermore, the claimants had produced on record the FIR registered
against the driver of the offending vehicle in relation to the accident in question.
The learned Tribunal erred in ignoring the aforesaid material evidence merely
on the ground that the accused was subsequently acquitted in the criminal case.
The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mangla Ram vs. Oriental Insurance Company
Ltd., 2018 (5) SCC 656, has held that in claim petitions under the Motor
Vehicles Act, once the involvement of the offending vehicle in the accident is
established, the learned Tribunal should adopt a liberal approach while
determining negligence. In other words, the approach of the learned Tribunal
should be holistic analysis of the entire pleadings and evidence by applying the
principles of preponderance of probability.
F.A.O. No. 2068 of 2003(O&M) and
F.A.O. No. 2282 of 2003(O&M) 7 / 11
12. In view of the above discussion, the finding recorded by the learned
Tribunal holding contributory negligence to the extent of 50% each is not
sustainable and the same is hereby set aside. It is accordingly held that the
accident in question occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of Tata
Tempo bearing registration No. PB-13-B-1286 by respondent No.1.
QUANTUM OF COMPENSATION
13. The next question that arises for consideration is whether the
compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal requires enhancement. The
learned Tribunal's assessment of compensation in the case of both the deceased
persons appears somewhat conservative in light of the principles laid down by
the Hon'ble Supreme Court for determining just compensation under Section
166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The learned Tribunal also deducted 50%
of the assessed compensation on account of contributory negligence which, as
held above, is not sustainable.
14. Therefore, the compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal deserves to
be reassessed and suitably enhanced in accordance with the settled principles
laid down by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v.
Pranay Sethi, 2017 (16) SCC 680, Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v.
Nanu Ram alias Chuhru Ram, 2018 (18) SCC 130 and Sarla Verma v. DTC,
2009 (6) SCC 121, wherein the framework for computation of "loss of
dependency" by addition towards future prospects as per the nature of
employment, deducting personal expenses of deceased, and applying
appropriate multiplier on the basis of age of the deceased, and standardized
amounts for conventional heads such as loss of estate, funeral expenses and loss
of consortium, has been settled. The present matter, therefore, call for
F.A.O. No. 2068 of 2003(O&M) and
F.A.O. No. 2282 of 2003(O&M) 8 / 11
recalculation of the amount under each of these heads by applying the correct
deduction on basis of dependency and correct multiplier relatable to the age of
the deceased and by granting the admissible sum towards consortium and other
conventional heads as mandated in the aforesaid decisions. The reassessment is
structured as under:
(i) FAO-2068-2003
15. While considering the question of enhancement of compensation, the
first aspect which requires determination is the income of the deceased Kaka
Singh. It was alleged by the claimants that the deceased was working as a
Mistri and was earning about ₹6000-7000 per month. However, no
documentary evidence was produced on record to substantiate the said
assertion. In the absence of any proof regarding his occupation and earnings,
the learned Tribunal assessed his income at ₹1000 per month by treating him as
a manual labourer. This Court is of the view that the said assessment is on the
lower side. Even if the claim regarding the deceased being a Mistri is not
accepted for want of proof, the income ought to have been assessed on the basis
of minimum wages prevalent at the relevant time. Considering the prevailing
wage structure during the relevant period, it would be reasonable and just to
assess the monthly income of the deceased Kaka Singh at ₹1500 per month.
Therefore, the reassessment is structured as under:
REASSESSED COMPUTATION
Particulars Award by Reassessed Award
Tribunal (₹) (₹ )
Monthly Income 1,000/- 1,500/-
Income With Future Prospects x 2,100/-
F.A.O. No. 2068 of 2003(O&M) and
F.A.O. No. 2282 of 2003(O&M) 9 / 11
(40%) (Age 21 yrs) (1,500 + 600)
Income After Deduction 500 1,050/-
(Unmarried) (1500 - 500) (2100 - 1050)
(50% for personal (50% for personal
expenses) expenses)
Annual Contribution To Family 6,000 12,600/-
(500 x 12) (1,050 x 12)
Loss Of Dependency 84,000/- 2,26,600/-
(6,000 × 14) (12,600 × 18)
Filial Consortium x 80,000/-
(Mother-Father)
Funeral Expenses x 15,000/-
Loss Of Estate x 15,000/-
Total ₹84,000/- ₹3,36,800/-
{After 50%
Deduction
= ₹42,000/-}
16. Resultantly, the compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal to the
claimants of Kaka Singh in MACT Case no.8/2000 is enhanced from ₹42,000/-
to ₹3,36,800/-. The enhanced amount shall carry the interest at rate of 7% per
annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till realization.
(ii) FAO-2282-2003
17. As regards the case relating to the death of Sham Lal, the claimants had
alleged that the deceased was working as a milkman and earning about ₹6000
per month. However, similar to the other case, no cogent evidence was
produced to substantiate the said claim. The learned Tribunal, therefore,
assessed his income at ₹1500 per month by taking the minimum wages of a
labourer, which, in the opinion of this Court, is reasonable and does not call for
any interference. Therefore, the reassessment is structured as under:
F.A.O. No. 2068 of 2003(O&M) and
F.A.O. No. 2282 of 2003(O&M) 10 / 11
REASSESSED COMPUTATION
Particulars Award by Reassessed Award (₹)
Tribunal (₹)
Monthly Income 1,500/- 1,500/-
Income With Future Prospects x 2,100/-
(40%) (1,500 + 600)
(Age-34 years)
Income After Deduction 1,000/- 1,575/-
(5 Dependents) (1500 - 500) (2,100 - 525)
(1/3rd for personal (1/4th for personal
expenses) expenses)
Annual Contribution To Family 12,000 18,900/-
(1,000 x 12) (1,575 x 12)
Loss Of Dependency 1,68,000/- 3,02,400/-
(12,000 x 14) (18,900 × 16)
Spousal Consortium x 40,000/-
Parental Consortium x 1,60,000/-
(4 Children) (40,000 x 4)
Funeral Expenses x 15,000/-
Loss Of Estate x 15,000/-
Total ₹1,68,000/- ₹5,32,400/-
{After 50%
Deduction =
₹84,000/-}
18. Resultantly, the compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal to the
claimants of Sham Lal in MACT Case no.9/2000 is enhanced from ₹84,000/- to
₹5,32,400/-. The enhanced amount shall carry the interest at rate of 7% per
annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till realization. The enhanced
compensation shall be apportioned amongst the claimants in the same ratio as
determined by the learned Tribunal.
F.A.O. No. 2068 of 2003(O&M) and
F.A.O. No. 2282 of 2003(O&M) 11 / 11
19. Accordingly, the compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal in both
claim petitions stands enhanced as under:
Appeal No. Enhanced compensation
FAO-2068-2003 ₹3,36,800/-
FAO-2282-2003 ₹5,32,400/-
20. In view of the discussion and findings recorded hereinabove, both the
appeals are partly allowed. The finding of the learned Tribunal holding
contributory negligence to the extent of 50% each is hereby set aside, and it is
held that the accident in question occurred solely due to the rash and negligent
driving of the offending vehicle by respondent No.1. Consequently, the
claimants shall be entitled to the enhanced compensation as determined by this
Court. The liability to pay the said amount shall remain joint and several upon
the driver, owner and insurer of the offending vehicle
21. Since the main case has been decided, pending miscellaneous
application(s), if any, stands also disposed of.
22. The photocopy of this judgment be placed on the files of connected
cases.
(VIRINDER AGGARWAL)
12.03.2026 JUDGE
Sourav Pathania
(i) Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
(ii) Whether reportable : Yes/No
