Chandrawati vs Rajinder Singh And Others

261(8 cases) Date of Decision: 07.09.2026
(1) FAO-2853-2004
HANS RAJ AND ORS. ....APPELLANTS
VERSUS
RAJINDER SINGH AND ORS ....RESPONDENTS
(2) FAO-2854-2004
MANNI ....APPELLANT
VERSUS
RAJINDER SINGH AND ORS ...RESPONDENTS
(3) FAO-2855-2004
JANJHAR SINGH @ PAPPI AND ANR ....APPELLANTS
VERSUS
RAJINDER SINGH AND ORS ...RESPONDENTS
(4) FAO-2856-2004
SUSHILA AND ORS ....APPELLANTS
VERSUS
RAJINDER SINGH AND ORS ...RESPONDENTS
(5) FAO-2857-2004
RAJANI ....APPELLANT
VERSUS
RAJINDER SINGH AND ORS ...RESPONDENTS
(6) FAO-5153-2004
CHANDERWATI ....APPELLANT
VERSUS
RAJINDER SINGH AND ORS ...RESPONDENTS
(7) FAO-5154-2004
CHANDERWATI AND ORS ....APPELLANTS
VERSUS
RAJINDER SINGH AND ORS ...RESPONDENTS
VISHAL VARDHAN
2026.09.09 16:50
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

FAO-2853-2004 and

other connected cases
- 2-

(8) FAO-5155-2004
BHUPINDER KAUR ....APPELLANT
VERSUS
RAJINDER SINGH AND ORS ...RESPONDENTS
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHVIR SINGH RATHOR
Present : Mr. B.S. Mamli, Advocate and
Mr. Robin Mahiwal, Advocate
for the appellant(s) in all cases.
Mr. Riten Singh, Advocate for
Mr. Saurabh Arora, Advocate
for respondent No.1.
Mr. Ravinder Arora, Advocate
for respondent No.2-United Insurance Co. Ltd.
Respondent No.3 ex parte before the Tribunal.
Mr. Sanjiv Pabbi, Advocate
for respondent No.4-Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.
*
YASHVIR SINGH RATHOR (ORAL)
CM-6872-CII-2016 IN FAO-5153-2004, CM-6854-CII-2016 IN FAO-5154-
2004, CM-6873-CII-2016 IN FAO-5155-2004
The instant applications under Section 151 C.P.C. have been moved
for fixation of actual date of hearing of the main appeals.
In view of the averments made in the applications, the same is
allowed.
The main appeals are ordered to be taken on board today itself.
Applications stand disposed of.
MAIN CASES
1. This judgment shall dispose of the aforesaid appeals which have
arisen out of the same Award.
VISHAL VARDHAN
2026.09.09 16:50
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

enhancement of compensation against the Award dated 25.02.2004 passed by the
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jagadhri ( for short “Tribunal” ) under Section
163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ( hereinafter referred to as ‘Act’ )
seeking compensation for deaths and injuries in an accident which took place on
02.04.2001 on account of use of vehicle bearing No.HR-58-0742 owned by
respondent No.1 and insured with respondents No.2 and vehicle bearing No.HNL-
6569 owned by respondent No.3 and insured with respondent No.4.
3. FAO-2853-2004 , titled ‘Hans Raj and others Versus Rajinder Singh
and others’, has been instituted by the husband and children of deceased Bimla for
enhancement of compensation of Rs.3,09,500/- awarded by the Tribunal on
account of her death in the aforesaid accident which has arisen out of claim
petition No.40 of 2001.
4. FAO-2854-2004 , titled ‘Manni Versus Rajinder Singh and others’,
has been instituted by the claimant for enhancement of compensation of
Rs.17,665/- awarded by the Tribunal on account of injuries suffered by him in the
aforesaid accident which has arisen out of claim petition No.69 of 2001.
5. FAO-2855-2004 , titled ‘Janjhar Singh @ Pappi and another Versus
Rajinder Singh and others’, has been instituted by the parents of deceased Sunni
for enhancement of compensation of Rs.1,54,500/- awarded by the Tribunal on
account of his death in the aforesaid accident which has arisen out of claim
petition No.70 of 2001.
6. FAO-2856-2004 , titled ‘Sushila and others Versus Rajinder Singh
and others’, has been instituted by the wife and children of deceased Kapoor
Chand for enhancement of compensation of Rs.3,60,500/- awarded by the
VISHAL VARDHAN
2026.09.09 16:50
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

claim petition No.45 of 2001.
7. FAO-2857-2004 , titled ‘Rajani Versus Rajinder Singh and others’,
has been instituted by the claimant for enhancement of compensation of
Rs.41,917/- awarded by the Tribunal on account of injuries suffered by her in the
aforesaid accident which has arisen out of claim petition No.68 of 2001.
8. FAO-5153-2004 , titled ‘Chanderwati Versus Rajinder Singh and
others’, has been instituted by the claimant for enhancement of compensation of
Rs.45,750/- awarded by the Tribunal on account of injuries suffered by her in the
aforesaid accident which has arisen out of claim petition No.59 of 2001.
9. FAO-5154-2004 , titled ‘Chanderwati and others Versus Rajinder
Singh and others’, has been instituted by the wife and children of deceased Kishori
Lal for enhancement of compensation of Rs.3,12,000/- awarded by the Tribunal
on account of his death in the aforesaid accident which has arisen out of claim
petition No.64 of 2001.
10. FAO-5155-2004 , titled ‘Bhupinder Kaur Versus Rajinder Singh and
others’, has been instituted by the claimant for enhancement of compensation of
Rs.61,780/- awarded by the Tribunal on account of injuries suffered by her in the
aforesaid accident which has arisen out of claim petition No.65 of 2001.
11. From the pleadings of parties, following issues were framed by the
learned Tribunal:-
“1. Whether the accident had taken place by the use of truck
No.HR58-0742 and truck No.HNL-6569? OPP.
……
2A. To what amount of compensation the claimant Mani is entitled
to and from whom?OP-Parties
VISHAL VARDHAN
2026.09.09 16:50
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

FAO-2853-2004 and

other connected cases
- 5-

……
2C. To what amount of compensation the claimants Janjhar Singh
and others are entitled to and from whom? OP-Parties
2D. To what amount of compensation the claimant Rajni is entitled
to and from whom?OP-Parties
2E. To what amount of compensation the claimant Sushila etc. are
entitled to and from whom?OP-Parties
…..
2G. To what amount of compensation the claimant Chanderwati is
entitled to and from whom? Op-Parties.
…..
2J. To what amount of compensation the claimants Chanderwati
and others are entitled to and from whom? Op-Parties.
2K. To what amount of compensation the claimant Bhupinder Kaur
is entitled to and from whom? Op-Parties.
…..
2R. To what amount of compensation the claimants Hans Raj and
others are entitled to and from whom? Op-Parties.
3. Whether the petition is not maintainable? OPR
4. Whether the insurance companies are not liable to pay the
compensation in view of preliminary objections taken by them
in their respective written statements? OPR 2&4
5. Relief.”
12. Thereafter, the parties led evidence in support of their respective
cases.
13. After hearing the parties and going through the material on the file,
the learned Tribunal awarded compensation to the claimant(s) as mentioned in
para Nos.3 to 10 of this judgment. It was further held that the compensation shall
be payable to the extent of 50% by respondents No.1 and 2 jointly and severally
and the remaining 50% shall be payable by respondent No.3 alone and respondent
VISHAL VARDHAN
2026.09.09 16:50
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

passengers were being carried in the truck in question which was a commercial
vehicle in violation of terms and conditions of the insurance policy Ex.R4.
14. Feeling aggrieved, the appeals in hand have been preferred. The
material on file has been perused and parties have been heard.
15. The only issue required to be determined in the present appeals
relates to the assessment of compensation. Therefore, the entire facts regarding the
manner of accident are not required to be reproduced in detail, as the Tribunal has
already held that the accident in question had taken place on account of use of
vehicle bearing No.HR-58-0742 owned by respondent No.1 and insured with
respondents No.2 and vehicle bearing No.HNL-6569 owned by respondent No.3
and insured with respondent No.4. No appeal or cross-objections have been filed
by respondents, challenging the said findings and accordingly, finding on issue
No.1 in all the claim petitions is not required to be interfered with.
16. Learned counsel for the appellants argued that the compensation
awarded by the Tribunal is inadequate. Learned counsel further contended that the
provision contained in Section 163-A of the Act has been replaced by Section 164
of the Act vide Act No.32 of 2019 and under Section 164 of the Amended Act,
claimants are entitled to compensation to the tune of Rs.5,00,000/- on account of
death and Rs.2,50,000/- on account of injuries suffered by victims. Learned
counsel next contended that the benefit of the beneficial provision enacted by the
Parliament should be given to the claimants accordingly. Learned counsel next
contended that the accident in question had taken place on account of use of two
vehicles and the Tribunal has fixed their liability in the ratio of 50:50 which is not
permissible. The claimants were third parties qua the owners and insurers of both
VISHAL VARDHAN
2026.09.09 16:50
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

them as their liability was composite and apportionment of compensation between
respondents No.1 and 2 on one hand and respondents No.3 and 4 on the other
hand is not permissible in view of law laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in
Law Finder Doc ID #669171, Khenyei Vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. And
Others . Learned counsel next contended that even if there was violation of terms
and conditions of the insurance policy by the owner of vehicle No.HNL-6569
owned by respondent No.3 for carrying gratuitous passengers in the said truck in
violation of terms and conditions of the insurance policy, still the Insurance
Company was liable to pay compensation to the third parties but it had a right to
recover the same from the insured. In support of his contentions, learned counsel
has relied upon the judgments of Hon’ble Supreme Court in 2023 ACJ 631 Ram
Murti and Others Vs. Punjab State Electricity Board , 7(2004) 2 SCC 1
National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Baljit Kaur, 8(2020) 20 SCC 632, Anu
Bhanvara Vs. IFFCO Tokio General Insurance Co. Ltd. , 2025 LiveLaw (SC)
9 ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Rajani Sahoo & Ors.
17. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents argued that
the judgment in Ram Murti’s case (supra) is not applicable to the present case
and the adequate compensation has been awarded and there is no scope for further
enhancement. Learned counsel next contended that liability of both the vehicles
has rightly been held to the extent of 50% each and no interference in the same is
called for. Learned counsel for respondent No.4 further contended that Insurance
Company has rightly been exonerated of its liability to indemnify the
owner/respondent No.3 as fifty passengers were being carried in the truck on a
religious trip who were gratuitous passengers and no premium had been paid for
VISHAL VARDHAN
2026.09.09 16:50
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

insurance policy, Insurance Company is not liable to indemnify respondent
No.3/insured and learned counsel contended that the well reasoned award passed
by the Tribunal does not call for any interference.
ASSESSMENT OF COMPENSATION
18. Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ram Murti’s case (supra) has held as
under:-
"7. The provisions of Section 140 which formed a part of Chapter 10
of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988 were omitted by Act 32 of 2019.
Simultaneously, Chapter 11 was substituted of which Section 164
provides for payment of compensation in the case of death in the
amount of Rs.5,00,000/- and in the case of grievous hurt of
Rs.2,50,000/-.
8. We are inclined to give the appellants the benefit of the beneficial
provisions which have been enacted by Parliament. Hence, in
modification of the order of the High Court, we direct that the
appellants shall be entitled to an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- as
compensation. However, if the amount of Rs.50,000 which has been
awarded by the High Court has already been paid over, the balance
(or the entirety of Rs.5,00,000/- if no amount has been paid) shall be
paid over to the appellants by 30 November 2022."
19. In Ram Murti’s case (supra) , the petition was filed under Section
166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, which had been dismissed. The accident had
taken place when Section 164 of the Act had not come into existence. However,
Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that the Motor Vehicles Act is a beneficial
provision and applied the beneficial provision of Section 164 of Motor Vehicles
Act retrospectively in cases of no-fault liability under Section 163-A and awarded
VISHAL VARDHAN
2026.09.09 16:50
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

20. In the present cases also, the accident took place on 02.04.2001,
resulting in deaths of Bimla, Sunni, Kapoor Chand and Kishori Lal and injuries to
Manni, Rajani, Chanderwati and Bhupinder Kaur. The claim petitions were filed
under Section 163-A of the Act. Now the amendment in Motor Vehicles Act has
come into force w.e.f. 01.04.2022 vide which Section 163-A of the Act has been
repealed and replaced by Section 164 of the Act. However, before this amendment
came into force, the Government by way of Motor Vehicle (Amendment) Act,
2019, vide Act No.32 of 2019 w.e.f. 01.09.2019 had replaced Section 163-A of the
Act with Section 164 and as such, Section 164 had infact come into force w.e.f.
01.09.2019, according to which, there is no cap on annual income and in case of
death, the claimants are entitled to compensation to the extent of Rs.5,00,000/-
each and in case of injury, claimants are entitled to compensation to the extent of
Rs.2,50,000/- each under ‘no-fault liability’. Accordingly, in view of law laid
down in Ram Murti’s case (supra) , it is held that the claimants are entitled to
compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- each , on account of deaths of Bimla, Sunni,
Kapoor Chand, Kishori Lal and Rs.2,50,000/- each on account of injuries suffered
by Manni, Rajani, Chanderwati and Bhupinder Kaur.
ISSUE OF LIABILITY
21. In the present case, it is established on record that respondent No.3
was carrying gratuitous passengers in the vehicle bearing No.HNL-6569 owned by
him and Tribunal has held that since the gratuitous passengers were being carried
in violation of terms and conditions of the insurance policy, the Insurance
Company is not liable to indemnify the insured and Insurance Company was
exonerated of its liability. Learned Tribunal while holding so relied upon the law
VISHAL VARDHAN
2026.09.09 16:50
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

Company Ltd. Vs. Asha Rani and Others . However, in a later decision in
National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Baljit Kaur’s case (supra) rendered by
a larger Bench of three Judges, it has been held that Insurance Company is liable
to satisfy the award and pay compensation to the claimants but it shall have a right
to recover the same from the owner of the vehicle in case there is breach of terms
and conditions of the insurance policy by carrying gratuitous passengers. In Anu
Bhanvara’s case (supra) also, the owner and driver were held liable to pay
compensation to the claimant as injured person was travelling in the said vehicle
as gratuitous passengers and was not covered under the insurance policy but the
Hon’ble Supreme Court applied the principle of “pay and recover” and directed
Insurance Company to pay the amount and thereafter, recover the same from the
owner of the vehicle. To the same effect is the law laid down by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Rajani
Sahoo’s case (supra) . Accordingly, finding of the Tribunal whereby respondent
No.4 has been wholly exonerated is not sustainable and it is held that respondent
No.4 shall pay the amount of compensation to the claimants but it shall have a
right to recover the same from respondent No.3/insured along with interest @ 6%
per annum from the date of deposit till realization. The judgment of Hon’ble
Supreme Court in 2008 ACJ 2144 National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Kaushalaya
Devi and Others relied upon by learned counsel for respondent No.4 too cannot
be relied upon as the said judgment was passed by a Division Bench whereas
National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Baljit Kaur’s case (supra) has been rendered
by a Bench comprising of Three Judges of Hon’ble Supreme Court which is a
larger Bench and has to be relied upon.
VISHAL VARDHAN
2026.09.09 16:50
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

vehicles can be fixed in the ratio of 50:50 or they are jointly and severally liable to
pay compensation to the claimants. Hon’ble Supreme Court in Khenyei’s case
(supra) has laid down the law on this issue in following terms:-
(i) In the case of composite negligence, plaintiff/claimant is
entitled to sue both or any one of the joint tort feasors and to
recover the entire compensation as liability of joint tort feasors
is joint and several.
(ii) In the case of composite negligence, apportionment of
compensation between two tort feasors vis-a-vis the
plaintiff/claimant is not permissible. He can recover at his
option whole damages from any of them.
(iii) In case all the joint tort feasors have been impleaded and
evidence is sufficient, it is open to the court/tribunal to
determine inter se extent of composite negligence of the
drivers. However, determination of the extent of negligence
between the joint tort feasors is only for the purpose of their
inter se liability so that one may recover the sum from the
other after making whole of payment to the plaintiff/claimant
to the extent it has satisfied the liability of the other. In case
both of them have been impleaded and the
apportionment/extent of their negligence has been determined
by the Court/Tribunal, in main case one joint tort feasor can
recover the amount from the other in the execution
proceedings.
(iv) It would not be appropriate for the Court/Tribunal to
determine the extent of composite negligence of the drivers of
two vehicles in the absence of impleadment of other joint tort
feasors. In such a case, impleaded joint tort feasor should be
left, in case he so desires, to sue the other joint tort feasor in
independent proceedings after passing of the decree or award.
VISHAL VARDHAN
2026.09.09 16:50
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

FAO-2853-2004 and

other connected cases
- 12-

23. The petition in Khenyei’s case (supra) was instituted under Section
166 of the Act in which rash and negligent driving is sine qua non for proving the
case and for claiming compensation whereas the present petitions have been
instituted under Section 163-A of the Act in which rash and negligent driving is
not to be looked into. The only question is to be determined is as to whether the
death or injury has taken place on account of use of vehicle or not which
admittedly stands proved as both the vehicles were involved in the accident. The
liability of owner and insurer of vehicle bearing No.HR58-0742 and respondent
No.3/owner of truck No.HNL-6569 has been held in the ratio of 50:50. However,
claimants in all the petitions were third parties qua owners and insurers of both the
vehicles and it was a case of composite/joint liability and claimants could seek
compensation from both or any of them and to recover the entire compensation as
their liability was joint and several. In these circumstances, it was not appropriate
for the Tribunal to determine the extent of liability of the owner/insurer of both the
vehicles. Resultantly, it is held that the claimants shall be entitled to recover the
compensation from the owners and insurers of both the vehicles whose liability
shall be joint and several. However, in case, any amount is recovered from
respondent No.4, it shall be entitled to recover the same from respondent No.3
along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of deposit till realization
without filing a separate suit.
24. As a result of the aforesaid discussion, the present appeals are partly
allowed with costs. The liability to pay the amount of compensation shall be upon
respondents No.1 to 4 jointly and severally i.e. owners and insurers of both the
vehicles. However, in case, any amount is recovered from respondent No.4, it
shall be entitled to recover the same from respondent No.3 along with interest @
VISHAL VARDHAN
2026.09.09 16:50
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

suit.
25. The appellants/claimants in FAO-2853-2004 are held entitled to
enhanced compensation of Rs.1,90,500/- ( Rs.5,00,000/- - Rs.3,09,500/-) along
with interest @ 9% per annum from the date when Section 164 of the Act came
into force i.e. 01.09.2019 till realization, to be shared equally by the appellants.
26. The appellant/claimant in FAO-2854-2004 is held entitled to
enhanced compensation of Rs.2,32,335/- (Rs.2,50,000/- - Rs.17,665/-) along with
interest @ 9% per annum from the date when Section 164 of the Act came into
force i.e. 01.09.2019 till realization.
27. The appellants/claimants in FAO-2855-2004 are held entitled to
enhanced compensation of Rs.3,45,500/- ( Rs.5,00,000/- - Rs.1,54,500/-) along
with interest @ 9% per annum from the date when Section 164 of the Act came
into force i.e. 01.09.2019 till realization, to be shared equally by the appellants.
28. The appellants/claimants in FAO-2856-2004 are held entitled to
enhanced compensation of Rs.1,39,500/- ( Rs.5,00,000/- - Rs.3,60,500/-) along
with interest @ 9% per annum from the date when Section 164 of the Act came
into force i.e. 01.09.2019 till realization, to be shared equally by the appellants.
29. The appellant/claimant in FAO-2857-2004 is held entitled to
enhanced compensation of Rs.2,08,083/- (Rs.2,50,000/- - Rs.41,917/-) along with
interest @ 9% per annum from the date when Section 164 of the Act came into
force i.e. 01.09.2019 till realization.
30. The appellant/claimant in FAO-5153-2004 is held entitled to
enhanced compensation of Rs.2,04,250/- (Rs.2,50,000/- - Rs.45,750/-) along with
interest @ 9% per annum from the date when Section 164 of the Act came into
VISHAL VARDHAN
2026.09.09 16:50
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

FAO-2853-2004 and

other connected cases
- 14-

force i.e. 01.09.2019 till realization.
31. The appellants/claimants in FAO-5154-2004 are held entitled to
enhanced compensation of Rs.1,88,000/- ( Rs.5,00,000/- - Rs.3,12,000/-) along
with interest @ 9% per annum from the date when Section 164 of the Act came
into force i.e. 01.09.2019 till realization, to be shared equally by the appellants.
32. The appellant/claimant in FAO-5155-2004 is held entitled to
enhanced compensation of Rs.1,88,220/- (Rs.2,50,000/- - Rs.61,780/-) along with
interest @ 9% per annum from the date when Section 164 of the Act came into
force i.e. 01.09.2019 till realization.
33. Registry is directed to email the authenticated copy of the judgment
to the respondent/Insurance Companies in terms of directions issued by the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in Writ Petition (Civil) No.534 of 2020 titled Bajaj
Allianz General Insurance Company Versus Union of India and others,
decided on 16.03.2021 and Insurance Companies shall comply with the directions
as issued under Clause (F) of the said judgment.
34. Pending misc. application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.
35. Photocopy of this order be placed on the file(s) of connected case(s).
07.09.2026 (YASHVIR SINGH RATHOR)
Vishal Vardhan JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned. : Yes/No
Whether reportable. : Yes/No
VISHAL VARDHAN
2026.09.09 16:50
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document