Sudesh Kumari & Ors. vs Lakhvinder Singh & Ors.
- Court
- Punjab and Haryana High Court
FAO-4416-2011
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
FAO-4416-2011
Sudesh Kumari and others ...Appellants
Versus
Lakhvinder Singh and others ...Respondents
Reserved on: 28.10.2026
Pronounced on: 02.11.2026
Pronounced fully/operative part: Fully
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA
Argued by: Mr. Devyansh, Advocate for
Mr. Nischal Chetanya Manchanda, Advocate
for the appellants.
DEEPAK GUPTA, J.
The present appeal has been preferred by the widow and minor
children of deceased Bishambar, assailing the award dated 06.01.2011 passed by
the learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Karnal (hereinafter referred to as
'the Tribunal'), whereby the claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, 'the Act'), was dismissed on the ground that the
involvement of the alleged offending motorcycle was not established.
2. Briefly stated, Bishambar sustained injuries in a motor vehicular
accident on 18.10.2006, allegedly caused by the rash and negligent driving of
motorcycle bearing registration No. HR-05-P-8919. He was initially taken to the
Civil Hospital, Nilokheri, and was thereafter shifted to Chandigarh for further
treatment, where he succumbed to his injuries on 21.10.2006. His widow, two
minor children and parents filed claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor
Vehicles Act, seeking compensation from the driver and owner of the offending
motorcycle, which was admittedly uninsured.
3. The claim petition was contested by the respondents, who denied
the involvement of their motorcycle. Upon appreciation of the evidence, the
YOGESH MEHTA
2026.11.02 14:06
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
Page N: 1 of Total 11 Pages
FAO-4416-2011
Tribunal held that the claimants had failed to establish that the accident was
caused by motorcycle No. HR-05-P-8919 and consequently dismissed the petition.
4. Aggrieved claimants filed present appeal. During the pendency of the
appeal, the appellants moved an application for leading additional evidence. This
Court, vide order dated 05.05.2023, directed the Tribunal to record the additional
evidence and submit its report. In compliance therewith, the Tribunal recorded
the evidence of the concerned witnesses and forwarded its report dated
20.09.2023. The appellants have also placed on record a salary certificate dated
25.09.2026 (Annexure P-7) issued by the Principal, Government Polytechnic,
Nilokheri, concerning the employment and emoluments of the deceased.
5. Learned counsel for the appellants contends that the Tribunal
adopted an unduly technical approach while appreciating the evidence. It is
submitted that the accident and the resultant death stand established from the
oral and medical evidence, and that minor discrepancies in the statements of
witnesses could not justify dismissal of the claim petition. Reliance is placed upon
the settled principle that proceedings under the Motor Vehicles Act are to be
decided on the touchstone of preponderance of probabilities and not beyond
reasonable doubt.
6. The respondents, initially put up appearance through their counsel
but were proceed ex-parte on 15.03.2023, as nobody appeared to represent
them.
7. Having considered the submissions and examined the record, the
question requiring determination is whether the Tribunal was justified in holding
that the involvement of motorcycle bearing registration No. HR-05-P-8919 was
not proved.
8. The legal position concerning the standard of proof in motor accident
claim proceedings is well settled. In Bimla Devi and others v. Himachal Road
Transport Corporation and others, (2009) 13 SCC 530 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court
held that the claimants are not required to establish the occurrence of an
accident in the same manner as the prosecution is required to prove a criminal
charge. The Tribunal is required to adopt a holistic approach and determine
YOGESH MEHTA
2026.11.02 14:06
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
Page N: 2 of Total 11 Pages
FAO-4416-2011
whether the claimants' version is more probable. Similar principles were
reiterated in Kusum Lata and others v. Satbir and others, (2011) 3 SCC 646, and
Mangla Ram v. Oriental Insurance Company Limited, (2018) 5 SCC 656 .
9. Nevertheless, the beneficial character of the legislation does not
dispense with the requirement of proving the foundational facts necessary to
fasten liability upon the alleged driver and owner. Where the involvement of a
particular vehicle is specifically disputed, the evidence identifying that vehicle
must be carefully examined. This assumes greater significance in the present case,
where the motorcycle was uninsured and the liability, if established, would fall
personally upon its driver and owner.
10. In the present case, PW-1 Sudesh Kumari, widow of the deceased,
admittedly was not an eyewitness. In her cross-examination, she stated that she
had mentioned the registration number of the offending motorcycle on the basis
of information supplied to her by another person. Her testimony, therefore,
establishes the relationship with the deceased and the consequential loss
suffered by the family, but cannot independently establish the manner of the
accident or the identity of the offending vehicle.
11. The material evidence regarding the occurrence is that of PW-2
Jitender, who claimed to have witnessed the accident. In his cross-examination,
he stated that the motorcycle of the deceased was proceeding approximately 15
to 20 yards ahead of him and that both had started together from Taraori
towards Nilokheri. He denied the suggestion that the deceased had fallen from his
motorcycle on account of skidding. He also denied that respondent No.1 and Jagir
Singh had merely happened to pass by and had assisted the injured on
humanitarian grounds. His version remained that the motorcycle of respondent
No.1 had struck the motorcycle of the deceased.
12. The testimony of PW-2 cannot be discarded merely because he was
travelling behind the deceased or because other traffic was moving on the road.
His stated position, approximately 15 to 20 yards behind the deceased, afforded
him an opportunity to observe the occurrence. No material contradiction has
been shown in the cross-examination, which would necessarily render his
presence at the spot improbable. The mere fact that the witness was acquainted
YOGESH MEHTA
2026.11.02 14:06
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
Page N: 3 of Total 11 Pages
FAO-4416-2011
with the deceased or was travelling in the same direction does not, without more,
justify rejection of his testimony.
13. The defence evidence also deserves consideration. RW-1 Lakhwinder
Singh, the alleged driver, admitted during cross-examination that a criminal case
under Sections 279 and 304-A IPC had been registered against him concerning the
accident and that charges had been framed. He further admitted that he was
driving motorcycle bearing registration No. HR-05-P-8919, owned by respondent
No.2, at the relevant time. His defence was that he was travelling behind the
deceased and had not caused the accident.
14. The above admissions are important. The registration of a criminal
case and framing of charges do not, by themselves, establish civil liability.
However, the admission that respondent No.1 was driving the very motorcycle
alleged to be involved in the accident, coupled with his acknowledged presence in
the vicinity of the occurrence, materially narrows the controversy. The dispute is
not one, where the respondents have established that their motorcycle was
elsewhere or that respondent No.1 had no connection whatsoever with the
occurrence. Their defence is essentially that although respondent No.1 was
present in the vicinity, he did not cause the accident.
15. RW-1 also stated that he had approached the police authorities
alleging false implication. However, he could not produce a copy of any such
representation, nor could he satisfactorily establish when it was submitted. He
admitted that no action was taken on the alleged representation. While the
failure to make such a complaint is not conclusive against him, the plea of false
implication remains unsupported by any independent documentary material.
16. RW-4 Jagir Singh sought to support the defence version stating that
respondent No.1 had been falsely implicated. However, in cross-examination, he
admitted that the police had not recorded his statement in connection with the
accident and that he had not approached the police to report the true
circumstances of the occurrence. Although he claimed to have assisted in taking
the injured to the Civil Hospital, Nilokheri, he could neither disclose the
registration number of the three-wheeler allegedly used for transporting the
YOGESH MEHTA
2026.11.02 14:06
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
Page N: 4 of Total 11 Pages
FAO-4416-2011
injured nor identify its driver. He also admitted that he had not approached any
senior police officer in support of respondent No.1's plea of false implication.
17. These omissions assume relevance because RW-4 was projected as a
person having direct knowledge of the occurrence and the subsequent removal of
the injured to the hospital. If he had witnessed an accident involving no fault on
the part of respondent No.1, his failure to disclose that version to the
investigating agency is a circumstance affecting the weight to be attached to his
testimony. His statement cannot be rejected merely because he did not approach
the police; nevertheless, when compared with the affirmative testimony of PW-2,
it does not furnish sufficiently convincing grounds to disbelieve the claimants'
version.
18. The respondents' evidence must also be appreciated in the light of
the fact that respondent No.1 admittedly was driving motorcycle No. HR-05-P-
8919 at the relevant time. The defence does not establish any independent cause
of the accident. The suggestion that the deceased had fallen because his
motorcycle skidded remained a disputed version and cannot be accepted merely
on the strength of suggestions put to the claimants' witnesses.
19. The subsequent medical evidence further establishes that Bishambar
sustained injuries on 18.10.2006, was initially taken to the Civil Hospital,
Nilokheri, and was thereafter referred for specialised treatment. The report
submitted pursuant to this Court's order dated 05.05.2023 records the evidence
concerning his admission and treatment at Chandigarh and the circumstances
leading to his death on 21.10.2006. The medical record thus provides
corroboration regarding the injuries and their fatal consequences. Although such
evidence does not independently identify the offending vehicle, it supports the
occurrence and its consequences.
20. The Tribunal appears to have attached decisive importance to
discrepancies concerning the reporting of the accident and the identification of
the motorcycle, without adequately considering the cumulative effect of PW-2's
eyewitness account, the admitted presence of respondent No.1 on motorcycle
No. HR-05-P-8919, and the weaknesses in the defence evidence. The evidence
YOGESH MEHTA
2026.11.02 14:06
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
Page N: 5 of Total 11 Pages
FAO-4416-2011
was required to be assessed as a whole, rather than by isolating individual
discrepancies.
21. In Sunita and others v. Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation
, the Hon'ble Supreme Court reiterated that the
and another, (2020) 13 SCC 486
Tribunal must examine the evidence on the touchstone of preponderance of
probabilities and that minor discrepancies cannot be allowed to defeat an
otherwise genuine claim. The standard of proof is not one of mathematical
certainty. What is required is a reasonable satisfaction, based on the available
evidence, that the accident was more probably caused in the manner alleged.
22. Applying these principles, this Court finds the testimony of PW-2
regarding the involvement of motorcycle No. HR-05-P-8919 to be more probable
than the defence version. The presence of respondent No.1 at the relevant place
and time, his admission that he was driving the motorcycle in question, the
criminal proceedings initiated against him and the absence of convincing
independent evidence supporting the theory of false implication lends support to
the claimants' case. The evidence, viewed cumulatively, is sufficient to establish
the involvement of the offending motorcycle on the touchstone of
preponderance of probabilities.
23. The manner of the occurrence, as narrated by PW-2, also supports
the conclusion that the accident resulted from the failure of respondent No.1 to
exercise reasonable care while driving. The defence has not established that the
deceased alone was responsible for the accident or that the occurrence was
unavoidable despite the exercise of due care. The finding of the Tribunal on the
issue of involvement and negligence is, therefore, set aside. It is held that
Bishambar sustained fatal injuries in the accident dated 18.10.2006 due to the
rash and negligent driving of motorcycle bearing registration No. HR-05-P-8919 by
respondent No.1.
Assessment of compensation
24. Having reversed the finding of the Tribunal on the issue of
negligence, this Court proceeds to determine just compensation. The accident
occurred in October 2006 and the claim has remained pending for approximately
YOGESH MEHTA
2026.11.02 14:06
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
Page N: 6 of Total 11 Pages
FAO-4416-2011
two decades. The evidence concerning the age, employment and income of the
deceased is available on record. Remanding the matter merely for assessment of
compensation would unnecessarily prolong the litigation.
25. The salary certificate dated 25.09.2026 issued by the Principal,
Government Polytechnic, Nilokheri, establishes that Bishambar was employed as
Lecturer in Electrical Engineering. He was appointed on 20.01.1995 and was a
regular government employee. His date of birth was 10.03.1965. Accordingly, he
was 41 years of age at the time of the accident.
26. The certificate shows that his gross monthly salary at the time of
death was ₹21,584/-. The same amount was also stated by PW-3 Shakuntla Devi,
an official from Government Polytechnic, Nilokheri, who produced the service
book and salary record. Thus, the deceased's employment and salary are
supported by official records.
27. The certificate further mentions the subsequent revision of pay
under the Sixth and Seventh Pay Commissions. However, the appropriate basis for
assessment is the income attributable to the deceased at the time of death, with
the addition towards future prospects in accordance with the principles laid down
by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Subsequent pay revisions cannot be mechanically
treated as the actual income of the deceased on the date of the accident.
28. In National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16
SCC 680, the Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that where
the deceased was a permanent employee aged between 40 and 50 years, an
addition of 30% towards future prospects is permissible. Since Bishambar was 41
years of age and held a permanent government post, an addition of 30% is
warranted.
29. In terms of
Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation, (2009) 6 SCC
121 , the appropriate multiplier for a deceased aged between 41 and 45 years is
14. As the deceased left behind his widow, two minor children and parents,
deduction of one-fourth towards personal and living expenses would ordinarily be
applicable, the number of dependants being five at the time of his death.
YOGESH MEHTA
2026.11.02 14:06
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
Page N: 7 of Total 11 Pages
FAO-4416-2011
30. The salary of ₹21,584/- per month is the gross salary reflected in the
official record. In Vimal Kanwar and others v. Kishore Dan and others, (2013) 7
SCC 476, the Hon'ble Supreme Court clarified that amounts received by the
dependants on account of the death of an employee, such as provident fund,
pension and other service benefits, are not liable to be deducted from the
compensation payable under the Motor Vehicles Act. Accordingly, any family
pension or other service benefits received by the widow cannot be deducted from
the compensation.
31. The salary certificate does not separately indicate the income tax
liability of the deceased. In terms of Pranay Sethi (supra) , income for
computation of compensation is to be considered after deduction of income tax,
wherever payable.
32. In the present case, the salary certificate records the salary of the
deceased at the time of death on 21.10.2006 as follows:
Component Monthly amount
Basic pay ₹11,025
Dearness allowance ₹5,513
Medical allowance ₹250
Dearness relief ₹4,796
Gross monthly salary ₹21,584
Annual salary (× 12) ₹2,59,008
33. After adding 30 % towards future prospectus, Pranay Sethi (supra),
annual income works out to be ₹3,36,710.4.
34. Applying the tax slabs for Financial Year 2006–07, the calculation of
income tax is as under:
YOGESH MEHTA
2026.11.02 14:06
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
Page N: 8 of Total 11 Pages
FAO-4416-2011
Particulars Amount
Gross annual salary after addition of
₹3,36,710.4
future prospectus
Basic exemption limit ₹1,00,000
Tax on ₹1,00,000–₹1,50,000 @ 10% ₹5,000
Tax on ₹1,50,000–₹2,50,000 @ 20% ₹20,000
Tax on ₹2,50,000–₹3,36,710.4 @ 30% ₹26,013.1
Income tax before cess ₹51,013.1
Education cess @ 2% ₹1,020.2
Total annual tax ₹52,033.3
Annual income after tax ₹2,84,677.1
35. Taking the annual income at ₹2,84,677/-, deducting one-fourth
towards personal expenses and applying the multiplier of 14, the loss of
dependency works out as follows:
Particulars Amount
Annual Income after tax deduction ₹2,84,677/-
Deduction of one-fourth towards
₹71,169.25
personal expenses
Annual contribution to family ₹2,13,507.75
Multiplier 14
Total loss of dependency ₹29,89,108.5
36. Besides loss of dependency, the claimants are entitled to
compensation under the conventional heads. In Pranay Sethi (supra), the Hon’ble
YOGESH MEHTA
2026.11.02 14:06
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
Page N: 9 of Total 11 Pages
FAO-4416-2011
Supreme Court prescribed compensation towards loss of estate, funeral expenses
and consortium, with periodical enhancement of 10%. In Magma General
Insurance Company Limited v. Nanu Ram alias Chuhru Ram, (2018) 18 SCC 130,
and United India Insurance Company Limited v. Satinder Kaur alias Satwinder
Kaur and others, (2021) 11 SCC 780 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court explained the
entitlement to spousal, parental and filial consortium.
37. The widow is entitled to spousal consortium and the two children to
parental consortium. The parents of the deceased are no longer alive .
38. Having regard to the principles governing conventional heads,
compensation is assessed as follows:
Head Compensation
Loss of dependency ₹29,89,108.5
Spousal consortium to widow ₹40,000
Parental consortium to two children ₹80,000
Loss of estate ₹15,000
Funeral expenses ₹15,000
Total ₹31,39,108.5
39. The claimants have also referred to expenses incurred on the medical
treatment of the deceased. However, in the absence of sufficiently proved
medical bills or other reliable evidence establishing the amount actually spent, no
separate quantified amount is awarded under this head. The evidence concerning
medical treatment has already been considered for establishing the injuries and
the circumstances leading to death.
40. The compensation assessed above is payable by the driver and
owner of the offending motorcycle, who shall be jointly and severally liable. Since
the vehicle was uninsured, no liability can be fastened upon any insurance
company.
YOGESH MEHTA
2026.11.02 14:06
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
Page N: 10 of Total 11 Pages
FAO-4416-2011
Conclusion:
41. Consequently, the present appeal is allowed. The award dated
06.01.2011 passed by the learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Karnal, is set
aside. The claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act is allowed
and the claimants are held entitled to compensation of ₹31,39,108.5, together
with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the claim
petition till realisation.
42. Respondent Nos.1 and 2, being the driver and owner of motorcycle
bearing registration No. HR-05-P-8919, shall be jointly and severally liable to
satisfy the award. They shall deposit the compensation, along with accrued
interest, before the Tribunal within three months from the date of receipt of a
certified copy of this judgment.
43. The Tribunal shall disburse the compensation amongst the appellants
in equal share. The pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.
02.11.2026 (DEEPAK GUPTA)
Yogesh JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
Whether reportable: Yes/No
Uploaded on: 02.11.2026
YOGESH MEHTA
2026.11.02 14:06
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
Page N: 11 of Total 11 Pages