Amarjit Kaur And Ors vs Parmod Kumar And Ors

-1-
117 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
FAO-3522-2003
Date of Decision: 12.11.2026
AMARJIT KAUR AND ORS
...Appellants
Versus
PARMOD KUMAR AND ORS
...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PARMOD GOYAL
Present: Mr. Gaurav Gaur, Advocate for
Mr. S. M. Sharma, Advocate
for the appellants.
Mr. Neeraj Khanna, Advocate for
Mr. Ravinder Arora, Advocate
for respondent No.3/Insurance Company.
PARMOD GOYAL, J. (ORAL)
Present appeal has been preferred by appellants-claimants (wife
and two children) being aggrieved by impugned award dated 16.05.2003
passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ambala (hereinafter
referred to as ‘Tribunal’) whereby compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- was
awarded on account of death of Harbhajan Singh (hereinafter referred to as
‘deceased’) in motor vehicular accident dated 23.10.2001 allegedly caused
due to rash and negligent driving of respondent-driver while driving maxi
cab bearing registration No.HR-04-7937 (hereinafter referred to as
‘ offending vehicle ’).
2. In present appeal, appellants-claimants are aggrieved by finding
of learned Tribunal on issue No.1 ‘Whether the accident in question had
RAVINDER DHANIA
2026.11.13 15:47
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

FAO-3522-2003 -2-
taken place due to rash and negligent driving of Maxi cab No.HR-04-7937
by its driver-respondent No.1?’, wherein learned Tribunal had concluded
that accident was result of contributory negligence on the part of deceased-
Harbhajan Singh as he was overtaking a trolley. It was held that it was his
duty to be careful and he should have taken notice of the vehicle coming
from opposite side. Since, he had failed to do so, therefore, deceased had
also contributed in causing the accident.
3. Learned counsel for appellants-claimants however, has
challenged the above-noted finding. He asserted that there was a total
misreading of testimony of Jeet Singh (PW-3) who was the eye-witness of
the accident and had duly stated the manner of accident in a detailed manner
which had gone unrebutted as respondent-driver had not dared to step into
the witness box to contradict manner of occurrence as was stated by Jeet
Singh (PW-3).
4. Learned Tribunal had also taken note of testimony of Jeet Singh
(PW-3) and had noted that Jeet Singh (PW-3) was duly present at the time of
occurrence as is made out from contents of FIR (EX. P4) wherein the author
of FIR, Mangat Singh had duly stated that he was present at the time of
occurrence along with Jeet Singh (PW-3). The assertions made in FIR
regarding presence of Jeet Singh at the time of occurrence have gone
unrebutted. Therefore, the manner of occurrence as stated by PW-3 has to be
appreciated as evidence of eye-witness who had witnessed the accident.
5. A careful reading of evidence of PW-3 goes to show that he had
nowhere stated that the tractor trolley was parked in the middle of the road
as was noted by learned Tribunal and there was hardly any place for passing
RAVINDER DHANIA
2026.11.13 15:47
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

FAO-3522-2003 -3-
of scooter, therefore, getting hit by vehicle coming from opposite side would
not happened entirely because of the fault of the vehicle coming from
opposite side. However, this conclusion drawn by learned Tribunal is not as
per the statement made by PW-3. PW-3 in fact had asserted that tractor
trolley was standing in kaccha portion of the road. PW-3 had not stated that
the tractor trolley was parked in the middle of the road blurring the vision of
the vehicle overtaking it or occupying entire left lane of the road. Rather
from the evidence of PW-3, it is made out that as far as left lane which was
the correct side for the scooter driver was entirely available to the scooter
driver and tractor trolley was on the kaccha portion of the road.
6. Jeet Singh had further asserted that it was the Maxi cab bearing
registration No. HR-04-7937 which was being driven rashly and negligently
and had caused the accident. These assertions of Jeet Singh (PW-3) have
gone unrebutted as none of the respondents had stepped into the witness
box. Learned Tribunal had erred in interpreting manner of accident. No
material is available to conclude contribution on the part of deceased-
Harbhajan Singh in causing the accident. The finding of contributory
negligence is a finding of fact which is dependent upon facts and
circumstances of each case and can only be recorded by Courts when some
act of omission or commission is shown on the part of driver of ill-fated
vehicle, upon which deceased/injured was traveling. It is not open for the
Courts to assume contributory negligence unless some act of omission or
commission on the part of deceased/injured is shown/proved for causing the
accident.
7. In the present case, learned Tribunal had mis-interpreted the
RAVINDER DHANIA
2026.11.13 15:47
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

FAO-3522-2003 -4-
evidence of PW-3 and had wrongly concluded that no space was left to pass
and deceased-Harbhajan Singh had tried to overtake the tractor trolley in
hasty manner. In fact, tractor trolley was not on the road, it was on the
kaccha portion and this fact was not taken in consideration by learned
Tribunal. If this fact is taken in consideration, it is clearly made out that the
entire lane upon which deceased-Harbhajan Singh was supposed to drive
was available to him and he had not crossed over to other side as to
contribute in the accident. Therefore, the finding of contributory negligence
recorded by learned Tribunal is against pleadings as well as evidence
available on file. Accordingly, same is set aside. It is held that accident dated
23.10.2001 was result of sole rash and negligent driving of respondent-
driver while driving Maxi Cab No.HR-04-7937.
8. Learned counsel for the appellants-claimants has also sought
enhancement in compensation. In the present case, learned Tribunal had
awarded the following compensation to appellant-claimants:
Income Rs. 2,500/- per month
Multiplier 13
Loss of dependency Rs. 3,90,000/-
(Rs.2,500/- X 12 x13)
Loss of Consortium Rs.5,000/-
Funeral Charges Rs.2,000/-
Loss of estate Rs.2,500/-
Total compensation Rs.4,00,000/-
(rounded-off)
Total compensation awarded by Rs.2,00,000/-
Tribunal (50% deducted on account of
contributory negligence)
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.
RAVINDER DHANIA
2026.11.13 15:47
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

FAO-3522-2003 -5-
•
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 and parental
consortium, in accordance with the law laid down by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court.
10. It is the case of appellants-claimants that deceased was 48 years
old and had retired from Army holding substantive rank of Subedar and
Honourary rank of Lieutenant and was getting pension of Rs.5,250/- at the
time of accident. It was further claimed by appellants-claimants that apart
from getting pension, deceased was earning Rs.60,000/-/Rs.70,000/- per
annum from agriculture also.
11. Appellants-claimants had duly placed reliance upon jamabandi
Ex.P-2 which shows that total land holding of deceased along with his
brother was only 2.5 acres. It is claim of appellants-claimants that deceased
was also having a truck and after his death the said truck was sold and
accordingly, learned Tribunal had taken income of deceased for the purpose
of loss of dependency to be Rs.2,500/- per month, multiplier of ‘13’ was
applied and total compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- was awarded to appellants-
claimants after making 50% deduction on account of contributory
negligence.
12. On consideration, I do not find any error in determination of
income/dependency by learned Tribunal. Learned Tribunal had duly taken in
consideration loss of pension, loss of income from agricultural land which is
to the extent of managerial skill of deceased and also loss of income on
RAVINDER DHANIA
2026.11.13 15:47
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

FAO-3522-2003 -6-
account of sale of truck and had accordingly, rightly taken income of
deceased as Rs.3,750/- and loss of dependency to be Rs.2,500/- per month
after excluding personal expenses of deceased.
13. Since deceased was aged 49 years at the time of accident, he
would be entitled to addition of 25% towards future prospects in view of
judgment passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in National Insurance
Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi and Ors. , 2017 (16) SCC 680. In view of
age of deceased to be 49 years, multiplier of ‘13’ was correctly applied by
the learned Tribunal as per judgment passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in
Smt. Sarla Verma & Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr. ,
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 and two children. Accordingly, deduction to the extent of 1/3rd
shall be applicable.
14. The loss of dependency, therefore, has to be determined by
taking monthly income of deceased to be Rs.3,750/- by applying future
prospects to the extent of 25%, multiplier of ‘13’ and by making deduction
of 1/3rd towards personal expenses.
15. 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 .
Appellants-claimants No.2 and 3 shall be entitled to compensation of
Rs . 40,000 /- each towards loss of parental consortium . It is however made
clear that in case Hon’ble Supreme Court answers the reference regarding
RAVINDER DHANIA
2026.11.13 15:47
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

FAO-3522-2003 -7-
quantum of compensation under conventional heads made in Hasina
Yasmin & Ors. Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd. , 2025 SCC Online SC
2919 in favour of appellants-claimants, appellant-claimants shall be free to
seek said amount by moving appropriate application in this regard.
16. Accordingly, reworked compensation is as under :-
Income Rs.3,750/- Rs.3,750/-
per month per month
Future Prospects 25% Rs.4,687/-
(Rs.3,750 + 937)
Deduction 1/3rd Rs.3,125/-
(Rs.4,687 – 1,562)
Multiplier 13 13
Total loss of dependency Rs.3,125 x 12 x 13 Rs.4,87,500/-
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
Nos.2 & 3
Rs.40,000 x 2 Rs.80,000/-
Total Compensation Rs.6,37,500/-
awarded in appeal
Total Compensation Rs.2,00,000/-
awarded by the Tribunal
Enhanced amount of Rs.6,37,500/- (awarded in
compensation appeal) – Rs.2,00,000/-
(awarded by the Tribunal)
Rs.4,37,500/-
17. 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.
18. Appeal is accordingly allowed.
RAVINDER DHANIA
2026.11.13 15:47
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

FAO-3522-2003 -8-
19. Pending application(s), if any, is/are disposed of accordingly.
(PARMOD GOYAL)
12.11.2026 JUDGE
Ravinder
Whether Speaking/Reasoned : Yes
Whether Reportable : Yes/No
RAVINDER DHANIA
2026.11.13 15:47
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document