Avtar Kaur And Ors vs State Of Punjab And Ors

-1-
106 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
FAO-1290-2002 (O&M)
Date of Decision: 03.11.2026
Avtar Kaur and Others
….Appellants
Versus
State of Punjab and Others
….Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PARMOD GOYAL
Present: Mr. Vishal Gupta, Advocate
for the appellants.
Mr. D.S. Lamba, Addl. A.G., Punjab.
PARMOD GOYAL, J. (ORAL)
Present appeal has been preferred by appellants-claimants
[wife and children (2)] seeking enhancement in compensation awarded vide
award dated 20.11.2001, passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,
Rupnagar (hereinafter referred to as ‘Tribunal’), whereby appellants-
claimants were awarded total compensation of Rs.6,10,000/- on account of
death of Surjit Singh (hereinafter referred to as ‘deceased’) in motor
vehicular accident dated 03.07.1998, allegedly caused due to rash and
negligent driving of respondent-driver while driving tractor bearing
registration No.PB-13-E-8926 (hereinafter referred to as ‘offending vehicle’)
2. Present appeal has been preferred by appellants-claimants
seeking enhancement in compensation and also being aggrieved by finding
of learned Tribunal on Issue No.1, whereby respondent-Darbara Singh,
owner and driver of Tractor bearing registration No.PB-13-E-8926, was held
GAGANDEEP
2026.11.05 15:25
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document
High Court, Chandigarh

FAO-1290-2002 -2-
liable to pay entire compensation.
3. It was the case of appellants-claimants that deceased was aged
35 years at the time of the accident and working as Junior Engineer with
G.G.S.S.T.P., Rupnagar. On 03.07.1998 for going to Ludhiana the deceased
had boarded bus bearing registration No.PB-12-C-9375, which belonged to
Punjab Roadways, Muktsar Depot and was being driven by respondent-
Harbhajan Singh. When bus had reached village Hedon, offending vehicle
being driven by Darbara Singh, came from opposite direction and had struck
against the bus. It was asserted that neither the driver of the bus nor the
driver of the offending vehicle used any dipper, both were rash and negligent
and there was a head on collusion between the offending bus and the
offending tractor. Resultantly the deceased suffered injuries along with other
passengers and driver of the bus had also died. However, the deceased
succumbed to his injuries on way to the hospital. It was alleged that accident
had taken place on account of rash and negligent driving on the part of
driver of bus as well as driver of tractor.
4. In order to prove the accident to be the result of rash and
negligent driving of drivers of bus and the tractor, the appellants-claimants
have duly examined Baljit Singh as PW-2 and Jarnail Singh as PW-3. The
conductor of bus appeared as RW-1. From the records of the case, it is also
not in dispute that FIR was lodged against driver of tractor and not against
driver of the bus. Even RW-1 had asserted accident to be the result of sole
rash and negligent driving of offending vehicle.
5. The learned Tribunal, after considering respective evidence led
by both sides, however, had relied upon evidence of RW-1 the conductor on
the bus and rejected evidence of PW-2 and PW-3 as regards to the manner of
GAGANDEEP
2026.11.05 15:25
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document
High Court, Chandigarh

FAO-1290-2002 -3-
accident. After taking into consideration FIR (Ex.R2), which was lodged
immediately after the accident and award passed by Sh. Gurnam Singh,
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Faridkot, which was placed as Ex.R1,
wherein driver of tractor alone was found to be liable for causing the
accident had accordingly held Issue No.1 against the driver and owner of the
tractor and in favor of respondent Nos.1 & 2 i.e. owner of bus. Accordingly,
respondent-Darbara Singh, owner and driver of the offending vehicle alone
was found liable to pay compensation.
6. The above noted finding of the learned Tribunal is being
challenged by learned Counsel for the appellants - claimants by submitting
that whereabouts of driver and owner of offending vehicle are totally
missing and learned Tribunal has erred in concluding accident to be the fault
of respondent-driver of offending vehicle alone especially when it has been
proved on record that accident was head-on collision during night hours and
none of the drivers had used dipper at that time. This goes to show that both
the drivers had caused the accident by contributing equally in causing the
accident. It is further asserted that as far as appellants-claimants are
concerned, the liability of respondents is composite liability.
7. Learned counsel for the appellants-claimants has also relied
upon Award dated 05.06.2001 (Annexure A-2) passed by Motor Accident
Claims Tribunal, Chandigarh in MACT No.135 of 1998, titled as ‘Nalini
.
Gupta & Anr. Vs Darbara Singh & Ors’ , which had also arisen from
accident dated 03.07.1998, which was caused on account of collusion
between tractor and the bus. A perusal of Award goes to show that learned
Tribunal in said case had duly taken in consideration evidence of eye-
witnesses as well as fact that accident was result of head on collision taken
GAGANDEEP
2026.11.05 15:25
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document
High Court, Chandigarh

FAO-1290-2002 -4-
place during night hours and had held that both the vehicles were liable for
causing the accident. Bus was held negligent to the extent of 60%, whereas
offending vehicle was found negligent to the extent of 40%.
8. Learned counsel for the respondent(s), on the other hand, has
supported the Award passed by the learned Tribunal on the ground that
learned Tribunal had duly appreciated the evidence available on record and
has rightly concluded accident to be result of sole rash and negligent driving
of the tractor.
9. On consideration, I find that the learned Tribunal in the present
case had taken in consideration only the evidence of RW-1 and FIR, wherein
it was stated that it was only the offending vehicle which was at fault. The
assertions made in FIR are only for the purposes of corroboration. It is the
evidence of witnesses on oath before the Court, which holds greater value
than the contents of FIR. In the present case, two of the eyewitnesses, PW-2
and PW-3, both have stated manner of occurrence of accident, which is more
or less similar to the assertions made by RW-1 and with contents of FIR.
Both PW-2 and PW-3 have stated that both the drivers i.e. driver of the bus
as well as driver of tractor were driving rashly and negligently and were not
using dipper during night hours. It has been stated by both PW-2 and PW-3
that accident had occurred during night hours head-on and both the vehicles
had come from and were traveling in opposite direction. These facts have
been duly admitted by RW-1 while deposing before the Tribunal. In the FIR
also, it is clearly mentioned that accident had taken place head-on during
night hours. Therefore, in these circumstances, the finding recorded by
learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chandigarh vide Award dated
05.06.2001, which has attained finality as no appeal is stated to have been
GAGANDEEP
2026.11.05 15:25
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document
High Court, Chandigarh

FAO-1290-2002 -5-
filed against the said Award is correct conclusion and in the present case
also, learned Tribunal has erred in not concluding that accident was result of
contributory negligence of driver of bus as well as driver of the offending
vehicle.
10. Accordingly, the finding of learned Tribunal on Issue No.1 is
modified. It is held that both the vehicles i.e. the bus as well as tractor were
being driven rashly and negligently. Accordingly, the bus and the offending
vehicle are held liable for causing accident in the ration 60:40 respectively
as were held liable by the Award dated 05.06.2001. However, as far as
appellants-claimants are concerned, this being third party claim qua both the
vehicles would be entitled to recover entire compensation from any of the
respondents or from all as liability of respondents is joint and several
liability.
11. In the present case, claimants/appellants have sought
compensation for loss of dependency on the ground that deceased was
working as Junior Engineer and was earning Rs.10,000/- per month. As per
salary certificate (Ex.P1) the deceased was earning a basic salary of
Rs.7,750/- per month. The learned Tribunal has taken the income of the
deceased as Rs.7,750/- per month. Unfortunately, in present case, records of
learned Tribunal had since been burnt in a fire incident and salary certificate,
so placed on record, is neither available for perusal of this Court as same is
not available on Court file or with the learned Counsel for the appellants or
respondents.
12. The appellants-claimants have pleaded income of the deceased
to be Rs.10,000/- per month. Since learned Tribunal has noted basic salary
of deceased to be Rs.7,750/- per month, the income of deceased in the above
GAGANDEEP
2026.11.05 15:25
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document
High Court, Chandigarh

FAO-1290-2002 -6-
noted circumstances is taken as Rs.9,000/- per month in absence of salary
certificate (Ex.P1) on account of burning of records after taking the fact in
consideration that apart from basic, deceased must be getting dearness and
other allowances. The deceased was 40 years of age at the time of accident,
therefore, multiplier of ‘15’ in present case, ought to have been granted to
the appellants – claimants as applicable as per judgment passed by Hon’ble
Supreme Court in Smt. Sarla Verma & Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport
Corporation & Anr. , 2009(6) SCC 121.
13. Since deceased was in a stable job and was working as Junior
Engineer, therefore, for the purposes of determining loss of dependency,
30% towards future prospects are required to be added in view of judgment
passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Ltd.
Vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors. , 2017 (16) SCC 680 . 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,
rd
deduction to the extent of 1/3 shall be applicable.
14. The loss of dependency, therefore, has to be determined by
taking monthly income of deceased to be Rs.9,000/- by adding future
prospects to the extent of 30%, by applying multiplier of ‘15’ and by making
rd
deduction of 1/3 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 & 3 shall be entitled to compensation of
Rs . 40,000 /- each towards loss of parental consortium . It is however made
GAGANDEEP
2026.11.05 15:25
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document
High Court, Chandigarh

FAO-1290-2002 -7-
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, 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.9,000/- Rs.9,000/-
per month per month
Future Prospects 30% Rs.11,700/-
(Rs.9,000 + 2700)
rd
Deduction 1/3 Rs.7,800/-
(Rs.11,700 – 3900)
Multiplier 15 15
Total loss of dependency Rs.7,800 x 12 x 15 Rs.14,04,000/-
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 claimants
No.2 & 3
Rs.40,000 x 2 Rs.80,000/-
Total Compensation Rs.15,54,000/-
awarded in appeal
Total Compensation Rs.6,10,000/-
awarded by the Tribunal
Enhanced amount of Rs.15,54,000/- (awarded
compensation in appeal) – Rs.6,10,000/-
(awarded by the Tribunal)
Rs.9,44,000/-
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.
The liability of the bus and the offending vehicle to pay compensation shall
be in the ratio 60:40 respectively. Apportionment to pay compensation shall
GAGANDEEP
2026.11.05 15:25
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document
High Court, Chandigarh

FAO-1290-2002 -8-
be as per award.
18. Appeal is accordingly allowed. Pending application(s), if any,
is/are disposed of accordingly.
(PARMOD GOYAL)
03.11.2026 JUDGE
Gagan
Whether Speaking/Reasoned : Yes
Whether Reportable : Yes/No
GAGANDEEP
2026.11.05 15:25
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document
High Court, Chandigarh