(O&M) Simranjit Kaur And Others vs Ravinder Singh Etc.

-1-
107 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
FAO-4141-2002 (O&M)
Date of Decision: 11.11.2026
SIMRANJIT KAUR AND OTHERS ...Appellants
Versus
RAVINDER SINGH AND OTHERS ...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PARMOD GOYAL
Present: Mr. B.P.S. Virk, Advocate
for the appellants.
Mr. Abhaypal Singh Gill, Advocate
for respondents No.1, 2(i) and (ii).
Mr. Rahul Pathania, Advocate
for respondent No.3.
PARMOD GOYAL, J. (ORAL)
Present appeal has been preferred by appellants/claimants [wife,
minor son and mother] seeking enhancement of compensation awarded vide
award dated 13.03.2002, passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,
Fatehgarh Sahib (hereinafter referred to as ‘ Tribunal ’), whereby appellants-
claimants were awarded total compensation of Rs.3,98,000/- on account of
death of Avtar Singh (hereinafter referred to as ‘ deceased ’) in motor
vehicular accident dated 14.12.1999 allegedly caused due to rash and
negligent driving of respondent-driver while driving Tractor bearing
registration No.PB-23B-1165 (hereinafter referred to as ‘ offending
vehicle ’).
2. The learned Tribunal had awarded the following compensation
to appellants/claimants holding it to be a case to contributory negligence to
the extent of 50% :-
CHIRANJEEV SINGH
2026.11.13 14:24
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

FAO-4141-2002 -2-
Income Rs.3,000/-
Deduction Rs.1,000/-
Multiplier 16
Loss of dependency Rs.2,000/-
Total compensation Rs.1,99,000/-
(50% of Rs.3,84,000/-)
3 . Learned counsel for appellants/claimants has challenged the
finding of the learned Tribunal on the issue of contributory negligence to the
extent of 50% on the part of deceased.
4. It is the case of appellants/claimants that on 14.12.1999,
deceased who was working as a pump operator in the public health
department, government of Punjab, had gone along with respondent-driver
Ravinder Singh to Mandi Gobindgarh in tractor trolley. When the deceased
had failed to return home, Kuldip Singh and his uncle had proceeded
towards Mandi Gobindgarh and on their way they found Mahindra Tractor
(red colour) coming, on whose mudguard deceased was sitting and the
tractor was being driven by the respondent-driver. It was claimed that tractor
was being driven by respondent-driver rashly and negligently. Kuldip Singh
and his uncle requested respondent-driver to drive the tractor slowly after
taking their scooter parallel to the tractor, however, respondent-driver did
not pay any heed to their advice. Resultantly, deceased fell down and got
crushed under the wheels of the tractor. FIR (Ex.P-6) was duly lodged on the
statement of Kuldip Singh. Kuldip Singh who appeared as PW-1 had
reiterated manner of occurrence as was stated by him while lodging the FIR
on the date of accident i.e. on 14.12.1999.
5. Learned Tribunal had duly accepted evidence of PW1 – Kuldip
Singh as regards to manner of accident and had rejected the evidence of
RW1-respondent/driver wherein he had denied the accident and had claimed
CHIRANJEEV SINGH
2026.11.13 14:24
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

FAO-4141-2002 -3-
false implication on account of enmity with the deceased.
6. On consideration, I find that as far as manner of accident is
concerned, learned Tribunal was correct in appreciating evidence of PW1
and RW1 and accepting evidence of PW1 over RW1. Though the respondent
driver had taken the plea of false implication on the ground that the deceased
had a grudge against the respondent-driver, it was correctly not found
convincing as it was not the deceased who had lodged the FIR but it was
Kuldip Singh who had lodged the FIR. There was no plea that PW1 was
inimical with respondent-driver. The FIR (Ex.P6) was duly lodged
immediately after the accident. No effort was ever made by respondent-
driver or owner of the offending vehicle to make a complaint to the
authorities regarding false implication of respondent-driver as well as
tractor. Manner of accident as was stated by PW1 has been accepted by
learned Tribunal, however, learned Tribunal had found deceased to have
contributed in causing the accident to the extent of 50% as he was travelling
on mudguard of the tractor. Mere travelling on the mudguard of the tractor
with permission of respondent-driver by itself cannot be held to be act of
contributory negligence. Contributory negligence has to be proved by
showing act of omission or commission which has contributed in the cause
of accident.
7. In the present case, respondent-driver had failed to prove as to
how by sitting on the mudguard of the tractor deceased had contributed in
causing the accident. He had simply denied the manner of accident. He had
even denied that deceased was riding on the tractor. Therefore, finding of
learned Tribunal as regards of contributory negligence cannot be sustained
CHIRANJEEV SINGH
2026.11.13 14:24
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

FAO-4141-2002 -4-
and accordingly, set aside. It is held that accident dated 14.12.1999 was
result of sole negligence of respondent-driver.
8. Learned counsel for appellants/claimants has also sought
enhancement in compensation which was awarded by learned Tribunal.
9. Learned counsel for the appellants/claimants has sought
enhancement of compensation on the following grounds :-
•
That the learned Tribunal has erred in not assessing the income
of the deceased as pleaded and proved by the claimants.
•
That the learned Tribunal has failed to apply the correct
multiplier, as per age of deceased.
•
That the deduction towards the personal and living expenses of
the deceased is excessive and contrary to the settled principles of
law.
•
That no addition towards future prospects has been made while
calculating the loss of dependency. Future prospects ought to
have been added, as per age of deceased.
•
That the learned Tribunal has also failed to award just and
appropriate compensation under the conventional heads, namely
funeral expenses, loss of estate, and loss of spousal, parental, and
filial consortium, in accordance with the law laid down by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court.
10. It was the case of appellant-claimants that deceased was
working as a tubewell pump operator in Public Health Department,
Government of Punjab on contract basis and was drawing salary of
Rs.3,210/- per month. It was also pleaded that deceased was also working as
a property dealer and was additionally earning Rs.5,000/- to Rs.6,000/- per
month from said vocation. It was further pleaded that the deceased was
additionally earning Rs.10,000/- per month from agricultural work.
11. In order to prove income and vocation of deceased
CHIRANJEEV SINGH
2026.11.13 14:24
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

FAO-4141-2002 -5-
appellants/claimants have placed reliance upon evidence of PW2-Sunil
Prasad, Sr. Clerk, PWD Public Health, who had duly proved mustroll
(Ex.P1) wherein it was shown that the deceased was earning Rs.3,092/- per
month in the month of november, 1999. It is also not in doubt as made out
from Ex.P2 that deceased was working for last five years and was a skilled
worker possessing Diploma from ITI, Nabha in electrician’s trade. Apart
from evidence of PW2, reliance has been placed upon evidence of PW3-
Dharminder Singh and PW5-Sher Singh wherein they have stated that apart
from working in PWD Department, deceased was also earning Rs.5,000/- to
Rs.6,000/- by working as an electrician and Rs.5,000/- to Rs.6,000/- by
working as a property dealer.
12. However, as far as oral assertions of PW3 and PW5 are
concerned, there is no corroborative and reliable evidence to conclude that
deceased was earning by doing two other occupations besides working with
PWD Department for whole day. Evidence of PW3 and PW5 have been
rightly rejected by learned Tribunal as not trustworthy.
13. In the present case, income of deceased has to be taken as
Rs.3,100/- per month as made out from mustroll (Ex.P1). Since deceased
was aged 29 years at the time of accident, he would be entitled to addition of
40% towards future prospects in view of judgment passed by Hon’ble
Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi &
Ors. , 2017 (16) SCC 680.
14. Keeping in view of age of deceased to be 29 years, multiplier of
‘17’ would be applicable as per judgment passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court
in Smt. Sarla Verma & Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr. ,
CHIRANJEEV SINGH
2026.11.13 14:24
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

FAO-4141-2002 -6-
2009(6) SCC 121. Similarly, deduction towards personal expenses has to be
made on the basis of number of dependents which are three in present case
i.e. wife, minor son and mother. Accordingly, deduction to the extent of
1/3rd shall be applicable.
15. The loss of dependency, therefore, has to be determined by
taking monthly income of deceased to be Rs.3,100/- by adding future
prospects to the extent of 40%, by applying multiplier of ‘17’ and by making
deduction of 1/3rd towards personal expenses.
16. Apart from compensation for loss of dependency,
appellants/claimants shall also be entitled to Rs . 15,000 /- towards funeral
expenses and Rs . 15,000 /- towards loss of estate . Appellant-claimant No.1
shall be entitled to compensation of Rs . 40,000 /- towards loss of spousal
consortium . Appellant-claimant No.2 shall be entitled to compensation of
Rs . 40,000 /- towards loss of parental consortium . Appellant-claimant No.3
shall be entitled to compensation of Rs . 40,000 /- towards loss of filial
consortium . It is however made clear that in case Hon’ble Supreme Court
answer the reference regarding quantum of compensation under
conventional head made in Hasina Yasmin & Ors. Vs. National Insurance
Co. Ltd. , 2025 SCC Online SC 2919 in favour of appellants-claimants,
appellants-claimants shall be free to seek said amount by moving
appropriate application in this regard.
17. Accordingly, reworked compensation is as under :-
Income Rs.3,100/- per month Rs.3,100/- per month
Future Prospects 40% Rs.4,340/-
(Rs.3,100 + 1,240)
Deduction 1/3rd Rs.2,893/-
(Rs.4,340 – 1,447)
Multiplier 17 17
CHIRANJEEV SINGH
2026.11.13 14:24
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

FAO-4141-2002 -7-
Total loss of dependency Rs.2,893 x 12 x 17 Rs.5,90,172/-
Loss of Estate Rs. 15,000/-
Funeral Expenses Rs.15,000/-
Loss of spousal
consortium to claimant
No.1
Rs.40,000/-
Loss of parental
consortium to claimant
No.2
Rs.40,000/-
Loss of filial consortium to Rs.40,000/-
claimant No.3
Total compensation Rs.7,40,172/-
awarded in appeal
Total Compensation Rs.1,99,000/-
awarded by the Tribunal (50% of Rs.3,84,000 /-
Enhanced amount of Rs.7,40,172/-
compensation (awarded in appeal) –
Rs.1,99,000/-
(awarded by the Tribunal)
Rs.5,41,172/-
18. Appellants/claimants shall be entitled to enhanced
compensation awarded in appeal along with 7.5% interest from the date of
filing of claim petition till realization (except under the conventional heads
i.e. loss of consortium, funeral expenses, loss of estate). Under conventional
heads interest shall be payable from August 2017 onwards till realization.
Apportionment and liability to pay compensation shall be as per award.
19. Appeal is accordingly allowed in above terms. Pending
application(s), if any, is/are disposed of accordingly.
(PARMOD GOYAL)
11.11.2026 JUDGE
Chiranjeev
Whether Speaking/Reasoned : Yes/No
Whether Reportable : Yes/No
CHIRANJEEV SINGH
2026.11.13 14:24
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document