Harbans Kaur And Anr vs Bhola & Ors

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
I. FAO-5188-2016 (O&M)
Smt. Harbans Kaur and Another . . . . Appellants
Vs.
Bholla and Others . . . . Respondents
II. FAO-2260-2018 (O&M)
M/s Sh. Jai Shiv Shankar Bhole . . . . Appellant
Vs.
Harbans Kaur and Others . . . . Respondents
Reserved on: 03.09.2026
Pronounced on: 07.09.2026
Pronounced fully/opera ;ve part: Fully

CORAM: HON’BLE MR JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA
Argued by:- Mr. Vipul Sharma, Advocate for the
appellants in FAO-5188-2016.
Mr. Rakshit Gupta, Advocate for the
appellant in FAO-2260-2018 and for
respondent No.2 in FAO-5188-2016.
Mr. Ankur Gupta, Advocate for
respondent No.3 in FAO-5188-2016 and for
respondent No.4 in FAO-2260-2018.
DEEPAK GUPTA, J.
These two appeals arise out of the same award dated
05.05.2016 passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, S.A.S. Na-
gar, Mohali, whereby compensa 2on of ₹11,84,000/- along with 6% interest
was awarded to the parents of deceased Jagtar Singh, who lost his life in a
motor vehicular accident.
2. FAO No.5188 of 2016 has been ﬁled by the claimants seeking
enhancement of compensa 2on, whereas FAO No.2260 of 2018 has been
ﬁled by the owner of the oﬀending vehicle challenging the recovery rights
NEETIKA TUTEJA
2026.09.07 18:03
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

FAO-5188-2016 (O&M)
FAO-2260-2018 (O&M)
granted by the Tribunal in favour of the insurance company. Since both ap-
peals arise out of the same award and involve common ques 2ons of fact
and law, they are being disposed of by this common order.
3. Brieﬂy stated, the facts are that on 07.11.2014, Jagtar Singh
was proceeding from Banur to Landran on his motorcycle. When he
reached near the bus stand of Village Dehri, the oﬀending vehicle, which
was earlier parked on the le? side of the road, suddenly came towards the
right side without giving any indicator, as a result whereof the motorcycle
of the deceased struck the oﬀending vehicle. Jagtar Singh sustained griev-
ous injuries and was taken to Government Medical College and Hospital,
Sector-32, Chandigarh, where he was declared brought dead. The maAer
was reported to the police and an FIR was registered against respondent
Bholla Singh, driver of the oﬀending vehicle.
4. The claim pe22on was ﬁled by the parents of the deceased. It
was pleaded that Jagtar Singh was 23 years of age and was employed as an
Engineer with Sony India, earning ₹15,000/- per month. Compensa2on was
accordingly claimed from the driver, owner and insurer of the oﬀending ve-
hicle.
5. The claim pe22on was contested by the respondents. The in-
surance company, apart from dispu2ng the claim, pleaded breach of the
terms and condi2ons of the insurance policy on the ground that the driver
was not holding a valid and eﬀec2ve driving licence at the 2me of the acci-
dent.
6. Upon apprecia2on of the evidence, learned Tribunal recorded
a categorical ﬁnding that the accident had occurred due to rash and negli-
gent driving of the oﬀending vehicle by Bholla Singh and that such accident
had resulted in the death of Jagtar Singh. The said ﬁnding regarding negli-
gence has not been seriously disputed before this Court and, on considera-
2on of the record, no ground is made out to interfere with the same. The
ﬁnding of negligence is, accordingly, aﬃrmed.
NEETIKA TUTEJA
2026.09.07 18:03
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
Page N: 2 of total 9 Pages

FAO-5188-2016 (O&M)
FAO-2260-2018 (O&M)
7. As regards quantum, learned Tribunal no 2ced that the de-
ceased was 23 years of age and had obtained a Diploma in Electronics and
Communica2ons from Shaheed Udham Singh Engineering College, Tangori,
as proved by Ex.P1. However, since there was no cogent evidence establish-
ing his employment with Sony India Ltd., the Tribunal assessed his income
no2onally at ₹7,000/- per month. It therea?er added 50% towards future
prospects, deducted 50% towards personal expenses and awarded total
compensa2on of ₹11,84,000/-, including amounts under the conven2onal
heads.
8. Seeking enhancement, learned counsel for the claimants sub-
mits that although there was no documentary evidence establishing the
deceased's employment with Sony India Ltd., it stands established that he
was a qualiﬁed diploma holder in Electronics and Communica2ons. It is ar-
gued that the Tribunal's assessment of income at ₹7,000/- per month was
on the lower side. Reliance has been placed upon Gurmit Kaur and others
v. Daljit Singh and another, Law Finder Doc Id No.2857435 , wherein, in re-
spect of a student pursuing Diploma in Civil Engineering from the same in-
s 2tu2on, this Court had assessed no2onal income at ₹12,000/- per month
in an accident which occurred in April 2012. Reliance has also been placed
upon Joginder Singh and another v. ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co.
Ltd., 2020(18) SCC 808 , wherein, in a case rela 2ng to the death of a 20-
year-old student undergoing Air Hostess Training Programme in an acci-
dent, which occurred in September 2009, the Hon'ble Supreme Court had
assessed income at ₹15,000/- per month.
9. Learned counsel for the owner, while assailing the recovery
rights, submits that the driving licence Ex.R5 was wrongly discarded by the
Tribunal. It is argued that although the licence was in the name of Gurjant
Singh, there was a speciﬁc conten2on that Bholla Singh, the driver, was
also known by the name of Gurjant Singh. It is further submiAed that the
Tribunal could not have presumed the licence to be fake merely because it
had been issued by the District Transport Oﬃcer, Tuensang, Nagaland, par-
2cularly when there was no evidence from the concerned licensing author-
NEETIKA TUTEJA
2026.09.07 18:03
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
Page N: 3 of total 9 Pages

FAO-5188-2016 (O&M)
FAO-2260-2018 (O&M)
ity to establish that the licence had not been issued by it. It is also submit-
ted that the insurance company never issued any no 2ce to the owner or
driver requiring produc2on or veriﬁca2on of the driving licence.
10. Learned counsel for the insurance company, on the other
hand, supports the award to the extent of recovery rights. It is, however,
fairly conceded that the addi2on towards future prospects, if reconsidered
in the light of the subsequent judgment of the Cons2tu2on Bench of
Hon’ble Supreme Court in Na +onal Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay
Sethi, AIR 2017 Supreme Court 5157 , would be restricted to 40%.
11. This Court has considered the submissions advanced by
learned counsel for the par 2es and has carefully examined the record.
Quantum of compensa +on
12. The ﬁrst ques 2on is with regard to the income of the de-
ceased. There is no dispute that Jagtar Singh was 23 years of age and had
already completed his Diploma in Electronics and Communica2ons from
Shaheed Udham Singh Engineering College, Tangori. The Tribunal rightly
declined to accept the pleaded income of ₹15,000/- per month in the ab-
sence of proof of his employment with Sony India Ltd. However, the ab-
sence of proof of a par2cular employment cannot jus2fy ignoring the edu-
ca2onal qualiﬁca2on and earning poten2al of a young person, who had al-
ready acquired a technical diploma.
13. In Joginder Singh and another v. ICICI Lombard General In-
surance Co. Ltd (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court assessed the income
of a 20-year-old student undergoing Air Hostess Training Programme at
₹15,000/- per month in an accident, which had occurred in September
2009. Likewise, in Gurmit Kaur and others v. Daljit Singh and another
(supra), this Court, while considering the death of a student pursuing
Diploma in Civil Engineering from the same ins 2tu2on, assessed no2onal
income at ₹12,000/- per month in respect of an accident which had oc-
curred in April 2012.
NEETIKA TUTEJA
2026.09.07 18:03
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
Page N: 4 of total 9 Pages

FAO-5188-2016 (O&M)
FAO-2260-2018 (O&M)
14. The present accident occurred in the year 2014. The de-
ceased had not merely been pursuing his diploma but had already com-
pleted a Diploma in Electronics and Communica 2ons. His educa2onal quali-
ﬁca2on, age and the 2me gap from the accidents considered in the afore-
said cases are relevant circumstances while assessing his probable earning
capacity.
15. At the same 2me, the Court cannot subs2tute proof of actual
employment by an assumed salary without a ra2onal basis. The assess-
ment has to remain one of reasonable es2ma2on rather than specula2on.
Balancing the aforesaid factors, this Court considers it just and reasonable
to assess the no2onal income of the deceased at ₹14,000/- per month, i.e.
₹1,68,000/- per annum.
16. The next ques2on concerns future prospects. The Cons2tu-
2on Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Na +onal Insurance Company
Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, AIR 2017 Supreme Court 5157, has se Aled the princi-
ples governing addi2on towards future prospects. Since the deceased was
below 40 years of age, an addi2on of 40% is warranted. The annual income
a?er addi2on of 40% thus comes to ₹1,68,000 + 40% = ₹2,35,200/- per an-
num.
17. The deceased was a bachelor. In terms of the principles laid
down in Sarla Verma and others v. Delhi Transport Corpora +on and an-
other, AIR 2009 Supreme Court 3104 , where the deceased is unmarried,
50% of the income is ordinarily liable to be deducted towards his personal
and living expenses. There is no material on record to jus 2fy departure
from the said principle. A?er deduc2on of 50%, the annual contribu2on to-
wards the family comes to be ₹1,17,600/-.
18. The deceased was 23 years of age. In accordance with the
mul2plier table laid down in Sarla Verma (supra and approved by the Con-
s 2tu2on Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Pranay Sethi (supra , the
appropriate mul 2plier for the age of 23 years is 18.
NEETIKA TUTEJA
2026.09.07 18:03
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
Page N: 5 of total 9 Pages

FAO-5188-2016 (O&M)
FAO-2260-2018 (O&M)
19. The loss of dependency is, therefore, calculated to be
₹1,17,600 × 18 = ₹21,16,800/-.
20. The claimants are the parents of the deceased. In view of the
law laid down in Pranay Sethi (supra) , read with Magma General Insur-
ance Company Ltd. v. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram, AIR ONLINE 2018 SC
1249 , the parents are en 2tled to compensa2on towards ﬁlial consor2um.
Since the accident occurred in 2014, an amount of ₹40,000/- each towards
ﬁlial consor2um to both the parents would be appropriate in the facts of
the present case.
21. The claimants are further en2tled to ₹15,000/- towards loss
of estate and ₹15,000/- towards funeral expenses.
22. The total compensa2on is consequently reassessed as under:
Head Amount

Loss of dependency ₹21,16,800/-

Filial consor 2um to mother ₹40,000/-

Filial consor 2um to father ₹40,000/-

Loss of estate ₹15,000/-

Funeral expenses ₹15,000/-
Total compensa ;on ₹22,26,800/-
23. The Tribunal had already awarded ₹11,84,000/-. The
claimants are, therefore, en 2tled to an enhanced amount of ₹10,42,800/-.
24. As regards appor2onment, although both parents are legal
heirs and are en2tled to ﬁlial consor2um, the material on record does not
establish equal ﬁnancial dependency of both parents upon the deceased.
The compensa2on towards loss of dependency is, therefore, appropriately
payable to the mother. Out of the total compensa2on, an amount of
₹40,000/- towards ﬁlial consor2um, along with propor2onate interest, shall
be payable to the father, while the remaining compensa2on, along with
propor2onate interest, shall be payable to the mother.
NEETIKA TUTEJA
2026.09.07 18:03
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
Page N: 6 of total 9 Pages

FAO-5188-2016 (O&M)
FAO-2260-2018 (O&M)
Liability and recovery rights
25. The next issue concerns the recovery rights granted to the in-
surance company. The Tribunal relied upon Ex.R5, the driving licence pro-
duced through Munish Kumar, partner of the owner of the oﬀending ﬁrm.
The Tribunal discarded the licence principally on the ground that it was in
the name of Gurjant Singh son of Harnek Singh, whereas the driver was
Bholla Singh, and there was no evidence establishing that both names re-
ferred to the same individual. The Tribunal further doubted the genuine-
ness of the licence because it had been issued by the District Transport
Oﬃcer, Tuensang, Nagaland, although there was no evidence that Bholla
Singh had ever resided in Nagaland.
26. The approach adopted by the Tribunal cannot be sustained.
The fact that a driving licence was issued by an authority in another State,
by itself, cannot cons 2tute a ground for holding the licence to be fake or in-
valid. A Court cannot proceed on the basis of geographical suspicion or
conjecture. If the insurance company sought to establish that Ex.R5 was
not a genuine licence issued by the concerned licensing authority, the bur-
den was upon it to produce cogent evidence to that eﬀect, ordinarily by ex-
amining the competent oﬃcial from the concerned licensing authority or
by otherwise proving the relevant oﬃcial record.
27. In the present case, there is no evidence from the oﬃce of
the District Transport Oﬃcer, Tuensang, Nagaland, to establish that Ex.R5
was not issued by that authority. There is, therefore, no eviden2ary basis
for the conclusion that the licence was fake merely because it originated
from Nagaland.
28. The second circumstance relied upon by the Tribunal was the
diﬀerence in the name of the driver and the name appearing on Ex.R5. No
doubt, Ex.R5 is in the name of Gurjant Singh son of Harnek Singh, whereas
the driver was described as Bholla Singh. However, the conten2on was
raised that Bholla Singh was also known as Gurjant Singh and that the fa-
ther's name appearing on the licence was consistent with the father's
NEETIKA TUTEJA
2026.09.07 18:03
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
Page N: 7 of total 9 Pages

FAO-5188-2016 (O&M)
FAO-2260-2018 (O&M)
name pleaded by the claimants in rela 2on to Bholla Singh. Whether both
names represented the same person was a ques2on requiring evidence
and could not have been conclusively answered against the owner merely
on the basis of the diﬀerence in nomenclature.
29. More importantly, the insurance company, which alleged
breach of the policy condi2on, was required to discharge the ini2al burden
of proving the breach. The evidence on record shows that no no2ce was is-
sued by the insurance company to the owner or driver requiring produc-
2on of the driving licence for veriﬁca2on, nor was any appropriate direc-
2on sought from the Tribunal for such produc2on.
30. It is seAled that the insurer cannot succeed merely by raising
a plea of breach. It must establish the breach by cogent evidence. In the
present case, the insurance company has failed to establish that the driver
did not possess a valid driving licence at the relevant 2me. The mere exis-
tence of a licence bearing a diﬀerent name, coupled with its issuance from
another State, is insuﬃcient to discharge that burden.
31. Consequently, the ﬁnding of the Tribunal gran2ng recovery
rights to the insurance company cannot be sustained. The same is accord-
ingly set aside. The liability to pay the compensa2on shall remain joint and
several upon all the respondents, with the insurance company being pri-
marily liable to sa2sfy the award in view of its statutory liability. The insur-
ance company shall have no right of recovery from the owner or driver.
Conclusion
32. In view of the aforesaid discussion, FAO No.5188 of 2016 ﬁled
by the claimants is allowed. The compensa 2on is enhanced from
₹11,84,000/- to ₹22,26,800/-, resul2ng in an enhancement of
₹10,42,800/-. The enhanced compensa2on of ₹10,42,800/- shall carry an
interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of ﬁling of the claim
pe22on 2ll the date of actual realisa2on.
NEETIKA TUTEJA
2026.09.07 18:03
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
Page N: 8 of total 9 Pages

FAO-5188-2016 (O&M)
FAO-2260-2018 (O&M)
33. Out of the total compensa 2on of ₹22,26,800/-, an amount of
₹40,000/- towards ﬁlial consor2um, along with propor2onate interest, shall
be payable to the father-claimant. The remaining amount, along with pro-
por2onate interest, shall be payable to the mother-claimant.
34. FAO No.2260 of 2018 ﬁled by the owner is also allowed. The
ﬁnding gran 2ng recovery rights to the insurance company is set aside. The
respondents shall remain jointly and severally liable for payment of the
compensa2on, with the insurance company having the primary obliga2on
to sa2sfy the award and without any right of recovery against the owner or
driver.
35. Both the appeals stand disposed of in the aforesaid terms.
Pending applica2on(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. A photocopy of
this order be placed on the ﬁle of the connected case.
(DEEPAK GUPTA)
JUDGE
07.09.2026
Nee ka Tuteja
Whether speaking/reasoned? Yes
Whether reportable? Yes
Uploaded on.: 07.09.2026
NEETIKA TUTEJA
2026.09.07 18:03
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
Page N: 9 of total 9 Pages