[Cites 9, Cited by 0]
Punjab-Haryana High Court
Subhash Chander vs Sant Lal And Ors on 23 March, 2026
1
FAO NO.313 OF 201
19 (O&M)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
FAO No.313
No.313 of 201
2019 (O&M)
SUBHASH CHANDER ...Appellant
Vs
SANT LAL AND ORS. ...Respondents
...Respondents
1 The date when the judgment was reserved 23.02
23.02.
.02.2026
2026
2 The date when the judgment is pronounced 23.03
.03.2026
3 The date when the judgment is uploaded on the website 23.03
.03.2026
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. Anil Kumar Gahlawat,, Advocate
for the appellant.
appellant
Mr. Raghunath Chauhan, Advocate for
Mr. J.K. Sehrawat, Advocate for respondent No.2.
Mr. Sandeep Suri, Advocate for respondent No.3.
****
HARKESH MANUJA, J.
CM-
CM-1198-
1198-CII-
CII-2019 & CM-
CM-1199-
1199-CII-
CII-2019
These are the applications seeking condonation of delay of 279 and 8
days in re-filing
filing and filing the appeal.
Notice of the applications was issued vide order dated 22.07.2019.
Upon hearing the learned counsels for the parties and considering the
averments made in the applications, which are duly supported by affidavits, the
prayer is allowed as sufficient cause
cause has been made out. As such, the delay of 279
and 8 days in re--filing
filing and filing the present appeals are thus, hereby condoned.
MAIN CASE
1. By way of present appeal, challenge has been laid to an award dated
05.08.2017 passed by the learned Motor
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Rohtak (for
1 of 9
FAO NO.313 OF 201
19 (O&M)
brevity, "the Tribunal"),
Tribunal"), whereby a sum of Rs.
Rs.4,45,000/- was awarded as
compensation to the appellant/claimant along with interest @ 9% per annum from
the date of institution of claim petition till its actual realiz
realization
ation on account of death
of Sukhbir, after holding that the deceased was contributory negligent to the extent
of 50%.
FACTS
2. A claim petition came to be filed before the learned Tribunal, praying
for grant of compensation to the tune of Rs. 50,0
50,00,000/- (Rupees fifty lakhs only),
on account of death of Sukhbir in a vehicular accident which took place on
03.11.2016 while alleging rash and negligent driving of respondent No.1
No.1-driver.
driver.
3. Upon consideration of the pleadings and appraisal of the evidence
adduced by the parties, the learned Tribunal concluded that the accident in question
occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the truck bearing registration No.
HR-56A-0067.
0067. However, recorded that the deceased, Sukhbir, collided with the
said truck from the rear side and did not exercise due care and caution, he was also
held to be contributory negligent to the extent of 50%.
4. Being aggrieved of the award dated 05.08.2017 passed by the learned
Tribunal, the present appeal was preferred
preferred by the appellant/claimant for
enhancement of compensation as well as for assailing the finding whereby the
deceased was held guilty of contributory negligence to the extent of 50%. Facts, as
specified in the claim petition, about the manner of the acc
accident
ident and the issue
regarding negligence of the driver recorded in favour of the appellants/claimants
by the learned Tribunal, being not under challenge, are not being repeated here for
the sake of brevity.
2 of 9
FAO NO.313 OF 201
19 (O&M)
ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE
APPELLANT/CLAIMANT.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the learned Tribunal
erred both on facts and in law while assessing the compensation and while
attributing contributory negligence to the deceased. It was submitted that the
evidence on record, including the testimony of the eye
eye-witness Sameer (PW-1)
1) and
the FIR registered under Sections 279, 283, 304
304-A
A IPC, clearly established that the
offending truck bearing registration No. HR-56A
HR 56A-0067
0067 was negligently parked in
the middle off the road without any indicator, reflector or parking lights, which
directly resulted in the accident. Despite these circumstances, the learned Tribunal
wrongly held the deceased to be equally negligent, ignoring the settled legal
position that parking a vehicle on the metalled portion of the road without proper
warning signals constitutes negligence on the part of the driver of such vehicle.
Learned counsel further argued that the Tribunal also assessed the income of the
deceased on a much lower side at Rs.7,500/-
R per month despite the unrebutted
evidence showing that the deceased, a young electrician aged about 22 years, was
earning substantially more. He submitted that the Tribunal failed to grant future
prospects and filial consortium in accordance with the principles laid down by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court, thereby resulting in inadequate compensation. Hence, it
was prayed that the impugned award be suitably modified by setting aside the
finding of contributory negligence and by enhancing the compensatio
compensationn payable to
the appellant.
ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF LEARNED COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENT
No.2/OWNER.
6. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.2/owner supported the
Award and submitted that the deceased himself struck the truck from the rear side,
3 of 9
FAO NO.313 OF 201
19 (O&M)
which clearly indicates lack of due care and caution on his part while driving the
motorcycle; thus, the finding of contributory negligence was justified. Learned
counsel submitted that the income of the deceased was rightly assessed in the
absence of any cogent documentary evidence regarding his alleged occupation or
higher earnings. It was also argued that the learned Tribunal granted compensation
by applying the appropriate multiplier and also under the conventional heads,
therefore, no further enhancement
enhancement was warranted. On these premises, learned
counsel prayed that the present appeal, being devoid of merit, deserved to be
dismissed.
ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF LEARNED COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENT
No.3/INSURANCE COMPANY.
7. Learned counsel for respondent No.
No.3/Insurance
3/Insurance Company argued on
the same lines as respondent No.2/owner and supported the impugned award
passed by the learned Tribunal. It was contended that the finding regarding
contributory negligence recorded by the learned Tribunal was based on proper
appreciation of evidence available on record and did not warrant any interference
by this Court. Learned counsel further submitted that the compensation awarded
was just and reasonable in the facts and circumstances of the case and, therefore,
the present appeal seeking enhancement of compensation was liable to be
dismissed.
DISCUSSION AND REASONING
8. I have heard learned counsels for the parties and perused the paper-
paper
book of the case. I find force in the arguments advanced by learned Counsel for the
th
appellant.
4 of 9
FAO NO.313 OF 201
19 (O&M)
QUESTION OF CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE
9. Upon a careful consideration of the material available on record, this
Court finds merit in the contention raised on behalf of the appellant with regard to
the finding of contributory negligence recorded by the learned Tribunal. A perusal
of the site plan (Ex. R2) clearly reveals that the offending truck was parked on the
pucca portion of the road. Moreover, there is nothing on record to show that any
parking lights, reflectors or warning indicators had been placed or switched on to
alert the oncoming traffic
traffic about the stationary vehicle. It is also an admitted
position that the accident occurred at about 9:30 p.m., when visibility would
naturally be reduced. In such circumstances, parking a heavy vehicle on the
metalled portion of the road without any warning
warning signal amounts to a clear act of
negligence on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle. Once this factual
position stands established from the record, the mere fact that the motorcycle of the
deceased struck the truck from behind cannot, by itse
itself,
lf, lead to an inference of
contributory negligence. Consequently, the finding recorded by the learned
Tribunal attributing 50% contributory negligence to the deceased cannot be
sustained and the same is hereby set aside.
QUESTION OF INCOME ASSESSED
10. In the present case, as far as the income of the deceased is concerned,
the Tribunal assessed the same @ Rs.7,500/- per month on a notional basis in the
absence of any documentary evidence, though the claimant had asserted that the
deceased was earning Rs.25,000/-
R per month while working as an electrician.
Since, the documentary evidence, in the form of ledger or income tax records, has
not been placed on record to substantiate
substantiate the claim of income of Rs.
Rs.25,000/- per
5 of 9
FAO NO.313 OF 201
19 (O&M)
month, therefore, this figure cannot be accepted by the Court on its face value.
Nevertheless, there is also no material on record to suggest that the deceased was
pursuing studies so as to justify the assessment of notional income on the
parameters applicable to children. In this situation, ob
observations
servations made by the
Hon'ble Apex Court in case of "Chandra @ Chanda @ Chandararam vs. Mukesh
Kumar Yadav & Ors.", reported as (2022) 1 SCC 198, held that in the absence of
proof of income, the minimum wage notification can be a yardstick but at the same
time cannot be absolute one to fix the income of the deceased and some guesswork
is required to be done to assess the income. Relevant excerpt thereof is reproduced
hereunder:-
".......In the absence of salary certificate the minimum wage notification
can be a yardstick but at the same time cannot be an absolute one to fix the
income of the deceased. In the absence of documentary evidence on record
some amount of guesswork is required to be done. But at the same time the
guesswork for assessing the income of ddeceased
eceased should not be totally
detached from reality. Merely because claimants were unable to produce
documentary evidence to show the monthly income of Shivpal, same does
not justify adoption of lowest tier of minimum wage while computing the
income. There is no reason to discard the oral evidence of the wife of the
deceased who has deposed that late Shivpal was earning around Rs.
15,000/ per month......"
15,000/-
10.1 Considering the facts of the present case, wherein it is the case of the
claimant/appellant that
that the deceased was working as an electrician and earning
Rs.25,000/- per month, it cannot be denied that the deceased was having a
reasonable and steady source of income, sufficient to maintain himself and
contribute to his family. Considering the age, nature of work, and prevalent
minimum wages applicable to skilled/unskilled labourer during the relevant period,
6 of 9
FAO NO.313 OF 201
19 (O&M)
this Court reasonably assesses
assesses the income of deceased @ Rs.
Rs.10,650/- per month,
which shall form basis for computation of compensation.
QUESTION REGARDING FUTURE PROSPECTS, MULTIPLIER AND
DEDUCTION TOWARDS PERSONAL EXPENSES.
11. In the present case, the deceased-
deceased Sukhbir was 22 years at the time of
his death, which stood duly proved and accepted by the learned Tribunal.
However, learned
rned Tribunal fell in error in not granting any addition towards future
prospects. In view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
"National Insurance Company Co. Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors. (2017) 16 SCC
680", an addition of 40% towards future
future prospects is to be made in the income of
deceased Sukhbir.
11.1 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, held that in case the deceased was
was a bachelor and the claimants were the
parents, the deduction follows a different principle and with regard to bachelors,
50% needs to be deducted as personal and living expenses. Relevant para of the
judgment is culled out as under:-
under:
"15. Where the deceased was a bachelor and the claimants are the parents,
the deduction follows a different principle. In this regard to bachelors,
normally, 50% is deducted as personal and living expenses, because it is
assumed that a bachelor would tend to spend more on himself. Even
otherwise, there is also the possibility of his getting married in a short time,
in which event the contribution to the parent(s) and siblings is likely to be
cut drastically. Further, subject to evidence to the contrary, the father is
likely to have his own income and will not be considered as a dependent
and the mother alone will be considered as a dependent. In the absence of
evidence to the contrary, brothers and sisters will not be considered as
dependents, because they will will wither be independent and earning, or
married, or be dependent on the father. Thus even if the deceased is
survived by parents and siblings, only the mother would be considered to
be dependent, and 50% would be treated as the personal and living
7 of 9
FAO NO.313 OF 201
19 (O&M)
expenses
expens es of the bachelor 50% as the contribution to the family. However,
where the family of the bachelor is large and dependent on the income of
the deceased, as in a case where he has a widowed mother and large
number of younger non-earning
non earning sisters or brothers
brothers,, his personal and living
expenses may be restricted to one-third
one third and contribution to the family will
be taken as two-third."
two
In the present case, since the appellant is the sole surviving claimant
and even the mother has expired, there being no other dependent, a deduction of
50% towards personal and living expenses of the deceased is made.
QUESTION OF COMPENSATION UNDER CONVENTIONAL HEADS
12. Furthermore, in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in
Smt. Sarla Verma's case (supra), Pranay Sethi's case (supra)" 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. Appellant/claimant is thus, held entitled for Rs.
Rs.18,000/- as
compensation
tion under funeral head and Rs.18,000/
Rs.18,000/- towards loss of estate. Loss of
consortium is assessed to the tune of
of Rs.48,000/
Rs.48,000/- (Rs.48,000
48,000 x 1) as the appellant
being father of deceased is also entitled for filial consortium.
CONCLUSION
13. 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 1,27,800/-
2. Deduction (50%) 63,900/-
3. Net Income (Rs. 1,27,800 - Rs. 63,900) 63,900/-
4. Future Prospects (40%) 25,560/-
5. Total Income (Rs. 63,900 + Rs. 25,560) 89,460/-
6. Loss of Income after applying multiplier of 18 16,10,280/-
16,10,280/-
as per the age of 22 years (89,460 x 18)
8 of 9
FAO NO.313 OF 201
19 (O&M)
7. Loss of estate 18,000/-
18,000/-
8. Funeral Expenses 18,000/-
18,000/-
9. Loss of Consortium (48,000 x 1) 48,000/-
48,000/-
10. Total compensation 16,94,280/-
16,94,280/-
11. Amount Awarded by the Tribunal 4,45,000/-
4,45,000/-
12. Enhanced Compensation 12,49,280/-
12,49,280/-
14. In the 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, the grant of interest @ 9% per annum on the amount of compensation
awarded to the claimants from the date of institution of claim petition till its
realization is justified. In case the said amount is 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 th
thee enhanced
compensation.
15. In view of the aforesaid modification, the present appeal stands
disposed of. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed
of.
(HARKESH MANUJA)
March 23, 2026
2026 JUDGE
Atik
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether reportable Yes/No
9 of 9
