Ashwani Kumar vs Surinder Kumar Etc.

FAO-527-2002 ( O&M) and FAO-982-2002(O&M)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
(Sr. No. 110)
Reserved on: 14.10.2026
Pronounced on: 31.10.2026
Uploaded on: 31.10.2026
1. FAO-527-2002(O&M)

THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED
……Appellant
Versus
ASHWANI KUMAR AND OTHERS
……Respondents
2. FAO-982-2002(O&M)

ASHWANI KUMAR
……Appellant
Versus
SURINDER KUMAR AND OTHERS
……Respondents
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AMARINDER SINGH GREWAL

Present: Ms. Meenakshi Bali, Advocate, for
Mr. Krishna Kant, Advocate,
for the appellant in FAO-527-2002 and
for respondent No.7-Insurance Company in FAO-982-2002.
Ms. Komal Jindal, Advocate,
for appellant in FAO-982-2002.
Mr. Ranjit Saini, Advocate and
Mr. Neeraj Tyagi, Advocate
for respondents No. 2 to 4 in FAO-527-2002 and
for respondents No. 1 to 3 in FAO-982-2002.
Mr. Ravinder Arora, Advocate
for respondent No. 5 in FAO-527-2002 and
for respondent No. 4 in FAO-982-2002
(National Insurance Company).

SHUBHAM
2026.10.31 14:00
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
-1-

FAO-527-2002 ( O&M) and FAO-982-2002(O&M)
AMARINDER SINGH GREWAL, J.
1. By this common order, two connected appeals, which arise out
of the same award, details whereof are given in the heading, are being
decided together, as they involve common questions of law and facts.
2. The appellant–Insurance Company, in FAO-527-2002, has
prayed for setting aside the award dated 16.10.2001 passed by the learned
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jagadhri, to the extent of the liability of
50% fastened upon it, whereas, the claimant, Ashwani Kumar, in the FAO-
982-2002, has sought enhancement of the compensation awarded for the
injuries sustained in the motor vehicular accident dated 13.12.1998.
3. For the sake of convenience facts of the case are being taken
from FAO-982-2002.
4. Succinctly, the facts of the case were that on 13.12.1998, the
claimant, Ashwani Kumar, was travelling in a Tata-407 vehicle bearing
registration No. HR-37-3617, which was being driven by him while
returning from Radaur towards Shahbad Markanda. When the vehicle
reached near Babain, a tractor bearing registration No. HR-07-C-7422,
loaded with sugarcane and driven by respondent No. 1, allegedly came
from the opposite direction in a rash and negligent manner and struck the
Tata-407 vehicle. As a result of the accident, the claimant sustained
multiple grievous injuries, including a fracture of his right leg, besides
injuries to his face, head and other parts of the body. He was initially taken
to the Civil Hospital, Ladwa, and was subsequently shifted to Kohli
Hospital, Jagadhri, where he underwent surgery and a steel rod was inserted
in his right leg. Claiming that he had suffered permanent disability and had
incurred substantial expenditure on his treatment, the claimant filed a claim
petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, seeking
SHUBHAM
2026.10.31 14:00
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
-2-

FAO-527-2002 ( O&M) and FAO-982-2002(O&M)
compensation for the injuries sustained in the accident. The respondents
contested the claim, disputing the manner of the accident and the
allegations of negligence. Upon appreciation of the evidence, the learned
Tribunal, held that the accident had occurred due to the contributory
negligence of the claimant and the driver of the tractor, apportioning their
negligence equally at 50% each. The learned Tribunal accordingly awarded
compensation against the insurers of the two vehicles. Aggrieved by the
award insofar as it fastened liability upon it to pay 50% of the
compensation, the insurer Company of the Tata-407 vehicle preferred the
FAO-527-2002 , whereas, claimant-appellant has filed FAO-982-2002 for
enhancement of compensation.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant in FAO-527-2002 contended
that the award dated 16.10.2001 passed by the learned Motor Accident
Claims Tribunal, Jagadhri, in MACT Case No. 61 of 1999 was
unsustainable in law and contrary to the facts proved on record. It was
submitted that the learned Tribunal had erred in holding both parties guilty
of contributory negligence to the extent of 50% each and in directing the
appellant-insurer of the Tata-407 vehicle to pay 50% of the compensation
awarded to the claimant. It was further contended that the claimant himself
was negligent while driving the vehicle and, therefore, the owner of the
vehicle could not be held liable to pay compensation for the claimant’s own
negligence, as a tortfeasor could not derive benefit from his own misdeeds.
Accordingly, it was argued that the finding fastening 50% liability upon the
appellant was unsustainable in law, and the impugned award was liable to
be set aside. Reliance has been placed on Ramkhiladi and another v.
United India Insurance Company and another, (2020) 2 SCC 550.
SHUBHAM
2026.10.31 14:00
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
-3-

FAO-527-2002 ( O&M) and FAO-982-2002(O&M)
6. Learned counsel for the appellant in FAO-928-2002 contended
that the award dated 16.10.2001 passed by the learned Tribunal, was
contrary to the facts and evidence on record and was liable to be modified.
It was argued that the learned Tribunal had erred in holding the appellant
guilty of contributory negligence despite the oral and documentary
evidence, including the testimony of the claimant and the eyewitness,
Shyam Sunder, which established that the accident occurred due to the rash
and negligent driving of the tractor-trolley. It was further contended that the
learned Tribunal had failed to adequately appreciate the nature and extent
of the injuries sustained by the appellant, the fracture of his right leg, the
surgical procedures undergone, the disability suffered and the medical
evidence on record. The compensation awarded was inadequate and did not
adequately account for the medical expenses, pain and suffering, special
diet, transportation, loss of income and other consequences of the injuries.
Accordingly, it was prayed that the impugned award be suitably modified
and the compensation enhanced in accordance with the evidence on record.
7.  I have heard learned counsel for the parties and examined the
limited record, with their able assistance.
8. The controversy in the present appeals lies in a narrow
compass. The question that arises for consideration is whether the learned
Tribunal was justified in attributing contributory negligence to the claimant,
Ashwani Kumar, to the extent of 50% and fastening the corresponding
liability upon the insurer of the Tata-407 vehicle, and whether the
compensation of ₹90,000 awarded for the injuries sustained by the claimant
warrants enhancement.
SHUBHAM
2026.10.31 14:00
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
-4-

FAO-527-2002 ( O&M) and FAO-982-2002(O&M)
9. A perusal of the impugned award reveals that the learned
Tribunal, while assessing the evidence led by the parties, noticed that the
accident had occurred during foggy conditions and in the presence of strong
lights, resulting in a head-on collision between the two vehicles. The
Tribunal further observed that there was no cogent and convincing evidence
to establish which of the two vehicles had crossed onto the wrong side of
the road or was being driven at an excessive speed. On this basis, the
Tribunal attributed contributory negligence to the drivers of both vehicles
in equal proportion. The claimant had sustained multiple injuries, including
fractures of the right leg, and the medical evidence established disability
assessed at 15%. The learned Tribunal awarded ₹60,000 towards medical
expenses and hospitalisation and ₹30,000 towards disability, aggregating to
₹90,000, along with interest.
10. The contention raised by the appellant–Insurance Company in
FAO-527-2002 does not merit acceptance. The learned Tribunal, while
deciding Issue No. 1, attributed contributory negligence to the claimant,
who was driving the Tata-407, as well as to the driver of the tractor-trolley,
in equal proportion, on an appreciation of the evidence available on record.
Having regard to the circumstances of the accident, including the presence
of fog and the absence of cogent evidence establishing which of the two
vehicles was being driven on the wrong side of the road or at an excessive
speed, the apportionment of negligence in the ratio of 50:50 cannot be said
to be unjustified. The claimant’s negligence having already been duly
accounted for in the apportionment, the appellant cannot seek to avoid its
liability merely by reiterating that the claimant was himself negligent.
Further, while deciding Issue No. 3, the learned Tribunal recorded that the
Insurance Company had failed to substantiate, by cogent evidence, the
-5-
SHUBHAM
2026.10.31 14:00
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

FAO-527-2002 ( O&M) and FAO-982-2002(O&M)
grounds on which repudiation of the insurance contract was sought. The
judgment in Ramkhiladi and another v. United India Insurance Company
and another(supra) does not warrant a different conclusion, as it dealt with
the maintainability of a claim under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles
Act, 1988, by the legal representatives of a person who had borrowed and
was driving the insured vehicle. The factual and legal context of the said
decision is distinguishable from the present case. In the absence of any
demonstrated error in the findings returned by the learned Tribunal, its
decision to fasten 50% liability upon the appellant–Insurance Company
calls for no interference. Accordingly, the challenge raised by the appellant
on this ground is rejected.
11. Coming to the question of adequacy of compensation in FAO-
982-2002 , the learned Tribunal awarded a sum of ₹90,000 to the claimant,
comprising ₹60,000 towards medical expenses and hospitalisation charges
and ₹30,000 towards permanent disability assessed at 15%. The claimant
has challenged the adequacy of the aforesaid amount, contending that the
learned Tribunal failed to grant just and reasonable compensation for the
injuries sustained by him and the consequential pain, suffering and
incidental expenses. The evidence noticed by the learned Tribunal
establishes that the claimant sustained multiple fractures, including
fractures of both bones of the right leg and the right femur. His permanent
disability was assessed at 15% by the medical board. Having regard to the
nature of the injuries, the surgical intervention and the period of
hospitalisation, the claimant would necessarily have undergone pain,
suffering and inconvenience during the period of treatment and recovery.
However, the learned Tribunal did not award any separate amount under
SHUBHAM
2026.10.31 14:00
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
-6-

FAO-527-2002 ( O&M) and FAO-982-2002(O&M)
the head of pain and suffering. The compensation awarded, therefore,
warrants a modest enhancement under this head.
12. Accordingly, a sum of ₹25,000 is considered just and
reasonable towards pain and suffering. Further, having regard to the nature
of the injuries and the treatment undergone, a consolidated sum of ₹10,000
is awarded towards special diet and transportation expenses. The amount of
₹60,000 awarded towards medical expenses and hospitalisation charges is
maintained, there being no sufficient material available in the surviving
record to justify a further enhancement under this head. Similarly, the
amount of ₹30,000 awarded towards permanent disability is maintained, as
the available evidence does not establish the extent of functional disability
or any corresponding loss of future earning capacity warranting a separate
enhancement on that account. Consequently, the total compensation
payable to the claimant is enhanced from ₹90,000 to ₹1,25,000, resulting in
an enhancement of ₹35,000.
13. In view of the aforesaid, FAO-982-2002, preferred by the
claimant, is partly allowed, and the compensation awarded by the learned
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jagadhri, vide award dated 16.10.2001, is
enhanced from ₹90,000 to ₹1,25,000. The enhanced amount of ₹35,000
shall carry interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of
the claim petition till its realisation. The liability of the insurers shall
remain in the ratio of 50:50, in terms of the finding returned by the learned
Tribunal. Consequently, each insurer shall be liable to contribute an
additional sum of ₹17,500, together with proportionate interest on the
enhanced amount. FAO-527-2002, preferred by the Insurance Company, is
dismissed.
SHUBHAM
2026.10.31 14:00
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
-7-

FAO-527-2002 ( O&M) and FAO-982-2002(O&M)
14. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.
(AMARINDER SINGH GREWAL)
JUDGE
October 31, 2026
Shubham*

Whether speaking/reasoned:- Yes/No
Whether Reportable:- Yes/No

SHUBHAM
2026.10.31 14:00
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
-8-