United India Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Satbir Kaur And Ors.
- Court
- Punjab and Haryana High Court
FAO-3829-2015
FAO-3066-2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH AT CHANDIGARH AT CHANDIGARH AT CHANDIGARH
RESERVED ON : 24.09.2026
RESERVED ON : RESERVED ON : 24.09.2026 RESERVED ON : 24.09.2026 24.09.2026
PRONOUNCED ON : 30.10.2026 PRONOUNCED ON : 30.10.2026
PRONOUNCED ON : PRONOUNCED ON : 30.10.2026 30.10.2026
UPLOADED ON : UPLOADED ON : 02.11.2026 UPLOADED ON : UPLOADED ON :
1.1.1.1. FAO FAO-3829 FAO FAO 3829 3829-20 3829 20 2015 20 15 15 (O&M) 15 (O&M) (O&M) (O&M)
United India Insurance Co. Ltd. ...Appellant
Versus
Satbir Kaur and others ...Respondents
2.2.2.2. FAO FAO-3066 FAO FAO 3066 3066-20 3066 20 2018 20 18 18 (O&M) 18 (O&M) (O&M) (O&M)
Satbir Kaur and others ...Appellants
Versus
Bhupinder Singh and another ...Respondents
CORAM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE HARPREET KAUR JEEWAN CORAM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE HARPREET KAUR JEEWAN
CORAM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE HARPREET KAUR JEEWAN CORAM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE HARPREET KAUR JEEWAN
Present: Mr. Harsh Aggarwal, Advocate,
with Mr. Parit Aggarwal, Advocate,
for the insurer-appellant in FAO-3829-2015,
and for respondent No.2 in FAO-3066-2018.
Mr. Digvijay, Advocate,
for Mr. Vishwajeet, Advocate,
for the claimant-appellants in FAO-3066-2018,
and for respondent Nos.1 and 2 in FAO-3829-2015.
Ms. Lipika, Advocate,
for Mr. B.S. Mamli, Advocate,
for respondent Nos.3 & 4 in FAO-3829-2015.
None for respondent No.1 in FAO-3066-2018,
and for respondent No.5 in FAO-3829-2015
HARPREET KAUR JEEWAN, J. HARPREET KAUR JEEWAN, J.
HARPREET KAUR JEEWAN, J. HARPREET KAUR JEEWAN, J.
1. The aforesaid appeals, having been arisen out of the same
ATUL SETHI
2026.11.02 16:17
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document
Chandigarh
Award dated 26.02.2015, passed by the Motor Accident Claims
1
FAO-3829-2015
FAO-3066-2018
Tribunal, Kurukshetra (hereinafter referred as ‘the Tribunal’) , and shall
be decided by this common order.
2. Relevant facts, in brief, are that on 27.09.2013, the
deceased-Gurinder Jeet Singh @ Gurinder Singh was travelling on a
motorcycle bearing No.HR-78-2675 (for short, ‘the motorcycle’) . At
about 8.15 P.M., when he was in between Shahabad Sugar Mill and
Haryali Bazar, a car bearing registration No.PB-11AY-5086 (for short,
‘the car’) , being driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner,
came from the opposite side at a high speed, and hit the motorcycle of
the deceased while going on the wrong side. Resultantly, the deceased
suffered serious injuries, which turned fatal and he was declared
brought dead by the doctors at the PGIMER, Chandigarh. A claim
petition was filed by the claimants, which was contested by the
owner/driver and insurer of the offending car.
2.1 The Tribunal vide the impugned Award, held that it was
the driver of the car who was rash and negligent; and fastened the
liability on the insurer of the car to satisfy the Award. The Tribunal
awarded compensation to the claimant-appellants in the following
manner:-
Sr. Sr. No. Sr. Sr. No. No. Heads No. Heads Heads Heads Compensation Awarded Compensation Awarded Compensation Awarded Compensation Awarded
1. Monthly income Rs.6,655/-
2. Future Prospects @ 50% Rs.9,982/-
3. Annual income Rs.1,19,784/-
4. Deduction @ ¼ Rs.89,838/-
5. Multiplier @ 15 Rs.13,47,570/-
ATUL SETHI
2026.11.02 16:17
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document
Chandigarh
2
FAO-3829-2015
FAO-3066-2018
6. Loss of consortium &
loss of love & affection
to claimant No.1
Rs.1,00,000/-
7. Loss of love & affection Rs.3,00,000/-
to claimant Nos.2 to 4
8. Funeral expenses Rs.25,000/-
9. Transportation Rs.10,000/-
10. Total Total Total Total Rs. Rs.17,82,570 Rs. Rs. 17,82,570 17,82,570/- 17,82,570
Interest @ 7.5% per annum
2.2 Feeling aggrieved, FAO FAO-3829 3829-2015 2015 has been filed by the
FAO FAO 3829 3829 2015 2015
Insurance Company regarding the issues of liability and quantum of
compensation; whereas, FAO FAO FAO-3066 FAO 3066 3066-2018 3066 2018 2018 has been filed by the 2018
claimants seeking enhancement of the compensation. Misc.
applications bearing CM CM CM-11821 CM 11821 11821-CII 11821 CII CII-2018 CII 2018 2018 and CM 2018 CM CM-11820 CM 11820 11820-CII 11820 CII CII-2018 CII 2018 2018 for 2018
condonation of 860 days’ delay 860 days’ delay 860 days’ delay in filing 860 days’ delay in filing in filing and 53 days’ delay in filing 53 days’ delay 53 days’ delay in re 53 days’ delay in re in re-filing in re filing filing filing
the accompanying appeal, respectively, have also been filed by the
claimants.
FAO FAO-3829 FAO FAO 3829 3829-2015 3829 2015 2015 2015
A. Proof of Negligence: Proof of Negligence: Proof of Negligence: Proof of Negligence:
3. Learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company
contends that it is evident from the cross-examination of PW-2 Kirpal
Singh, the alleged eye-witness, that he did not see the accident, but the
Tribunal has wrongly held the liability of the Insurance company only
on the basis of registration of the FIR and filing of final report under
Section 173 Cr.P.C. Cites Lakhwinder Singh and others Vs. Jai Narain Lakhwinder Singh and others Vs. Jai Narain Lakhwinder Singh and others Vs. Jai Narain Lakhwinder Singh and others Vs. Jai Narain
ATUL SETHI
2026.11.02 16:17
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document
Chandigarh
3
FAO-3829-2015
FAO-3066-2018
and others, 2026 Law Finder (P&H) 10375 and others, 2026 Law Finder (P&H) 10375 and others, 2026 Law Finder (P&H) 10375 and others, 2026 Law Finder (P&H) 10375 and Ram Kishan and Ram Kishan and Ram Kishan and Ram Kishan and
another Vs. Deepak and others, 2024 Law Find another Vs. Deepak and others, 2024 Law Finder (P&H) 9805. another Vs. Deepak and others, 2024 Law Find another Vs. Deepak and others, 2024 Law Find er (P&H) 9805. er (P&H) 9805. er (P&H) 9805.
4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent-claimants
jointly contend that the question of liability has been rightly determined
by the Tribunal.
5. I have considered the aforesaid submissions and have gone
through the record.
6. It is not disputed that FIR (Ex.P-4) was registered against
Bhupinder Singh, driver-respondent No.5 herein on the ground that he
caused accident by rash and negligent driving of the car. The Police
has conducted spot investigation and submitted a report under Section
173 Cr.P.C. (Ex.P-1). It is also not in dispute that aforesaid Bhupinder
Singh had been facing the criminal proceedings on the basis of said
report. The statement of eyewitness Kripal Singh (Ex.P-2) was also
recorded during the investigation and as per the report of the
postmortem examination (Mark-B), the deceased died on account of
road-side accident. The Tribunal has considered the aforesaid evidence
while holding the driver of the car as rash and negligent. In such
circumstances, even if the testimony of eyewitness Kripal Singh, PW-2
is not considered, the other evidence is found unrebutted. Bhupinder
Singh-respondent No.5 has not stepped into the witness-box and has
not contradicted the testimony of the eyewitness as well as the
aforesaid documentary proof.
7. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Ranjeet & Anr. Vs. Abdul Ranjeet & Anr. Vs. Abdul Ranjeet & Anr. Vs. Abdul Ranjeet & Anr. Vs. Abdul
Kayam Neb & Anr., SLP (C) No.10351/2019, decided on 25.02.2025 Kayam Neb & Anr., SLP (C) No.10351/2019, decided on 25.02.2025 Kayam Neb & Anr., SLP (C) No.10351/2019, decided on 25.02.2025 Kayam Neb & Anr., SLP (C) No.10351/2019, decided on 25.02.2025 ,
ATUL SETHI
2026.11.02 16:17
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document
Chandigarh
4
FAO-3829-2015
FAO-3066-2018
has held that it is settled in law that once the charge-sheet has been
filed and the driver has been held negligent, no evidence is required to
prove that the vehicle was being negligently driven by the driver. It
was further held that even if eyewitnesses are not examined, that will
not be fatal to prove negligence of the driver. The relevant
observations are as under:-
“4. It is settled in law that once a charge sheet has been filed and
the driver has been held negligent, no further evidence is required to
prove that the bus was being negligently driven by the bus driver.
Even if the eyewitnesses are not examined, that will not be fatal to
prove the death of the deceased due to negligence of the bus driver.
5. In view of the aforesaid facts, we are of the opinion that the
Tribunal and the High Court both manifestly erred in law in refusing
to grant any compensation to the claimants.”
8. In view of the facts and circumstances of this case, the
evidence led on behalf of the claimants and the ratio of the aforesaid
decisions, the findings of the Tribunal holding respondent No.5-driver
liable for rash and negligent driving of the car require no interference.
9. The decisions relied upon by learned counsel for the
appellant-insurer in Lakhwinder Singh (supra) Lakhwinder Singh (supra) Lakhwinder Singh (supra) Lakhwinder Singh (supra) and Ram Kishan (supra) Ram Kishan (supra) Ram Kishan (supra) Ram Kishan (supra)
are distinguishable in view of the recent decision of the Hon’ble Apex
Court in Ranjeet (supra) Ranjeet (supra). Ranjeet (supra) Ranjeet (supra)
B. Quantum of Quantum of compensation Quantum of Quantum of compensation compensation: compensation
10. Learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company
submits that keeping in view the age of the deceased, addition towards
ATUL SETHI
2026.11.02 16:17
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document
Chandigarh
5
FAO-3829-2015
FAO-3066-2018
future prospects ought to have been at the rate of 40% instead of 50%
determined by the Tribunal. It is further contended that compensation
towards loss of consortium is also on the higher side. Cites National National
National National
Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi (2017) 1 Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi (2017) 16 SCC 680. Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi (2017) 1 Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi (2017) 1 6 SCC 680. 6 SCC 680. 6 SCC 680.
11. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent-
claimants contends that future prospects and consortium have been
rightly applied. It is further contended that the amount already paid by
the Insurance Company cannot be refunded. Cites Hem Raj Vs. Hem Raj Vs. Hem Raj Vs. Hem Raj Vs.
Oriental Insurance Company Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Oriental Insurance Company Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Ltd. and others, 2018 (15) SCC 654. Ltd. and others, 2018 (15) SCC 654. and others, 2018 (15) SCC 654. and others, 2018 (15) SCC 654.
12. I have considered the aforesaid submissions.
13. There is no dispute about the income of the deceased
which was assessed by the Tribunal as Rs.6,655/- per month on the
basis of daily wage rate fixed by the Deputy Commissioner,
Kurukshetra, for the year 2013. The Tribunal has made an addition of
50% towards future prospects, which has to be reduced to 40% in view
of the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Pranay Sethi (su Pranay Sethi (supra) Pranay Sethi (su Pranay Sethi (su pra) pra), pra)
since the deceased was getting a fixed salary. Keeping in view the age
of the deceased as 38 years at the time of the accident, the multiplier of
15 has been rightly applied. Keeping in view the number of dependents
th
of the deceased, deduction at the rate of 1/4 has been rightly applied
towards personal expenses. However, the compensation towards loss
of love and affection (consortium) has been awarded on a higher side in
view of the decision in Magma General Insurance Company Limited Magma General Insurance Company Limited Magma General Insurance Company Limited Magma General Insurance Company Limited
Vs. Nanu Ram s. Nanu Ram s. Nanu Ram alias Chuhru Ram and Others, (2018) 18 SCC 13 s. Nanu Ram alias Chuhru Ram and Others, (2018) 18 SCC 13 alias Chuhru Ram and Others, (2018) 18 SCC 13. alias Chuhru Ram and Others, (2018) 18 SCC 13 The
ATUL SETHI
2026.11.02 16:17
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document
Chandigarh
6
FAO-3829-2015
FAO-3066-2018
amount awarded under the conventional heads also needs to be
reconsidered.
14. Accordingly, the compensation is re-worked as under:-
Sr. Sr. No. Sr. Sr. No. No. Heads No. Heads Heads Heads Compensation Awarded Compensation Awarded Compensation Awarded Compensation Awarded
1. Monthly income Rs.6,655/-
2. Future Prospects @ 40% Rs.9,317/-
3. Annual income Rs.1,11,804/-
4. Deduction @ ¼ Rs.83,853/-
5. Multiplier @ 15 Rs.12,57,795/-
6. Loss of consortium Rs.1,92,000/-
7. Funeral expenses Rs.18,000/-
8. Loss of estate Rs.18,000/-
9. Total Total Total Total Rs. Rs.14,85,795 Rs. Rs. 14,85,795 14,85,795/- 14,85,795
15. In view of the above discussion, appeal filed by the
Insurance Company (FAO-3829-2015) is partly allowed and the
compensation awarded to the claimants by the Tribunal is modified as
above. However, as per the decision by the Hon’ble Apex Court in
Hemraj ( Hemraj (supra) Hemraj ( Hemraj ( supra) supra) supra) , any amount already received by the claimants will not
be liable to be refunded.
CM CM-11821 CM CM 11821 11821-CII 11821 CII CII-2018 CII 2018 2018 and CM 2018 CM CM-11820 CM 11820 11820-CII 11820 CII CII-2018 CII 2018 2018 2018
in FAO FAO FAO-3066 FAO 3066 3066-2018 3066 2018 2018 2018
16. The Tribunal passed the Award on 26.02.2015, in the
presence of the counsel for the claimant/appellants, whereas the appeal
has been filed on 04.10.2017, after a huge delay of 860 days. There is
no sufficient explanation for such a long delay in raising a challenge to
ATUL SETHI
2026.11.02 16:17
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document
Chandigarh
7
FAO-3829-2015
FAO-3066-2018
the compensation awarded by the Tribunal. Averment have been made
in the application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal that the
appellants did not know the technicalities of law; they were fully
dependent upon the advice of their counsel; they met their counsel in
nd
the 2 week of September, 2017, and only then it was suggested to file
an appeal before this Court seeking enhancement of compensation.
However, such bald grounds cannot be accepted as a reasonable ground
for a long delay of 860 days in raising a challenge to the compensation
awarded by the Tribunal.
17. The Hon’ble Apex Court, in State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Madhya Pradesh vs. Madhya Pradesh vs. Madhya Pradesh vs.
Ramkumar Choudhary; Special Leave Petition (C), Diary No.48636 of Ramkumar Choudhary; Special Leave Petition (C), Diary No.48636 of Ramkumar Choudhary; Special Leave Petition (C), Diary No.48636 of Ramkumar Choudhary; Special Leave Petition (C), Diary No.48636 of
2024, Date of Decision: 29.11.2024 2024, Date of Decision: 29.11.2024 2024, Date of Decision: 29.11.2024 2024, Date of Decision: 29.11.2024 , has observed that the discretion to
condone the delay has to be exercised judiciously based on the facts
and circumstances of each case and the expression “sufficient cause”
cannot be liberally interpreted, if negligence, inaction or lack of bona
fide is attributed to the party. It was further observed that where a case
has been presented in the Court beyond the period of limitation, the
petitioner has to explain the Court as to what the “sufficient cause”
was, which means an adequate and enough reason which prevented him
to approach the Court within limitation. Reference was also made to the
observations of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Majji Sannemma vs. Reddy Majji Sannemma vs. Reddy Majji Sannemma vs. Reddy Majji Sannemma vs. Reddy
Sridevi, 2021 SCC Online SC 1260 Sridevi, 2021 SCC Online SC 1260 Sridevi, 2021 SCC Online SC 1260 Sridevi, 2021 SCC Online SC 1260 , wherein, it was held that even
though limitation may harshly affect the rights of a party, it has to be
applied with all its rigour when prescribed by statute. A reference was
ATUL SETHI
2026.11.02 16:17
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document
Chandigarh
8
FAO-3829-2015
FAO-3066-2018
also made to the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Ajay Dabra vs. Ajay Dabra vs. Ajay Dabra vs. Ajay Dabra vs.
Pyare Ram, 2023 SCC Online SC 92 Pyare Ram, 2023 SCC Online SC 92 Pyare Ram, 2023 SCC Online SC 92 Pyare Ram, 2023 SCC Online SC 92 , wherein, it was held as follows:-
“13. This Court in the case of Basawaraj v. Special Land
Acquisition Officer [(2013) 14 SCC 81] while rejecting an
application for condonation of delay for lack of sufficient cause has
concluded in Paragraph 15 as follows:
"15. The law on the issue can be summarised to the effect
that where a case has been presented in the court beyond
limitation, the applicant has to explain the court as to what
was the "sufficient cause" which means an adequate and
enough reason which prevented him to approach the court
within limitation. In case a party is found to be negligent, or
for want of bona fide on his part in the facts and
circumstances of the case, or found to have not acted
diligently or remained inactive, there cannot be a justified
ground to condone the delay. No court could be justified in
condoning such an inordinate delay by imposing any
condition whatsoever. The application is to be decided only
within the parameters laid down by this Court in regard to
the condonation of delay. In case there was no sufficient
cause to prevent a litigant to approach the court on time
condoning the delay without any justification, putting any
condition whatsoever, amounts to passing an order in
violation of the statutory provisions and it tantamounts to
showing utter disregard to the legislature."
14. Therefore, we are of the considered opinion that the High Court
did not commit any mistake in dismissing the delay condonation
application of the present appellant."
18. In view of the facts and circumstances of this case, this
Court is of the considered opinion that no sufficient cause has been
explained for the huge inordinate delay of 860 days in filing the present
appeal.
ATUL SETHI
2026.11.02 16:17
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document
Chandigarh
9
FAO-3829-2015
FAO-3066-2018
19. In view of the above, CM CM CM-11821 CM 11821 11821-CII 11821 CII CII-2018 CII 2018 2018 being devoid of 2018
merits, is dismissed.
20. Consequently, CM CM-11820 11820-CII CII-2018 2018 shall also stand
CM CM 11820 11820 CII CII 2018 2018
dismissed.
21. Since the appeal (FAO-3066-2018) has been filed beyond
the period of limitation and the applications seeking condonation of
delay have been dismissed, as such, the appeal is also dismissed.
71. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.
30.10 30.10.2026 30.10 30.10 .2026 .2026 .2026 [HARPREET KAUR JEEWAN] [HARPREET KAUR JEEWAN] [HARPREET KAUR JEEWAN] [HARPREET KAUR JEEWAN]
Gurpreet/Atul Sethi JUDGE JUDGE JUDGE JUDGE
Whether speaking / reasoned : Yes No
Whether Reportable : Yes No
ATUL SETHI
2026.11.02 16:17
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document
Chandigarh
10