Prahlad Singh Minhas vs Devinderjit Singh

FAO No.5875 of 2002 (O&M) -1-
S. No.259+108
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH

FAO No.5875 of 2002 (O&M)
Date of Decision:07.09.2026
Prahlad Singh Minhas and another .....Appellants
Vs.
Devenderjit Singh and others .....Respondents
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHVIR SINGH RATHOR
Present:- Mr. H.S. Minhas, Advocate and
Mr. Rajat Singh, Advocate for the appellants.
Service of respondents No.1, 2, 4 and 5 is
dispensed with.
Mr. Gopal Mittal, Advocate for respondent No.3.
Mr. D.P. Gupta, Advocate for respondent No.6.

Yashvir Singh Rathor, J. (Oral)
CM No.11295-CII of 2026
1. This is an application for placing on record the death certificate of
applicant No.2/wife of the applicant as Annexure A.2 and Aadhar Card of
appellant as Annexure A.1 as well as Bank detail of appellant as Annexure A.3.
2. For the reasons mentioned in the application, the same is allowed.
Annexures A.1 to A.3 are taken on record.
FAO No.5875 of 2002 (O&M)
1. Respondents No.1 & 2 were ex parte before the Tribunal.
Respondents No.4 and 5 were not held liable to pay the awarded amount by the
RENU
2026.09.09 17:15
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

FAO No.5875 of 2002 (O&M) -2-
Tribunal and therefore, there is no necessity to issue notice to respondents No.1, 2,
4 and 5. As such, issuance of notice to them is dispensed with.
2. This appeal has been instituted by the claimants against the Award
dated 3.8.2002 passed in MACT case No.68 of 1998 decided by the Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal, Jalandhar ( for short “Tribunal” ) in a petition under
Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, `Act’) for enhancement of
compensation vide which a sum of Rs.6,00,000/- has been awarded as
compensation to the claimants on account of death of their son Jitender Singh
Minhas in a motor vehicular accident which took place on 9.4.1998 due to rash
and negligent driving on the part of respondent No.1 while driving the offending
vehicle bearing No.DL-IP-938 ( hereinafter referred to as ‘offending vehicle’ )
alongwith interest @9% per annum from the date of award till realisation.
3. From the pleadings of parties, following issues were framed by the
learned Tribunal:-
“1. Whether Jitender Singh Minhas died in motor vehicle accident
caused by rash and negligent driving of Bus bearing No.DL-IP-938
by respdt no.1 on 9.4.1998 near Panipat?OPP.
2. Whether claimants are entitled to compensation, if so, to what
extent and from which of the respondents?OPP.
3. Whether respdt. no.1 did not hold valid driving licence and
there is otherwise contravention of the terms of the policy and
insurance co. is not liable to pay any compensation? OP insurance
co.
4. Relief.”
4. The parties led their respective evidence.
RENU
2026.09.09 17:15
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

FAO No.5875 of 2002 (O&M) -3-
5. After hearing the parties and going through the material on the file,
learned Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.6,00,000/- as compensation to the
claimants, along with interest 9% per annum from the date of filing of claim
petition till realization, payable by respondents No.1 & 2 jointly and severally.
However, Insurance Company was directed to make the payment but was given a
right to recover the same from respondents No.1 and 2.
6. Feeling aggrieved, the appeal in hand has been preferred. The
material on file has been perused and parties have been heard.
7. The only issue required to be determined in the present appeal relates
to the assessment of compensation. Therefore, the entire facts regarding the
manner of the accident are not required to be reproduced in detail, as the Tribunal
has already held under issue No.1 that the accident occurred due to the rash and
negligent driving on the part of respondent No.1 while driving offending vehicle
and respondents No.1 & 2 have been held liable to pay compensation jointly and
severally. No appeal or cross-objections have been filed by respondents,
challenging the said finding and accordingly finding on issue No.1 is not required
to be interfered with and the same is affirmed.
8. Learned counsel for the appellants argued that the Tribunal has not
appreciated the facts of the case and evidence on file in the correct perspective
while assessing the compensation which is grossly inadequate. Learned counsel
contended that no future prospects have been added to the income of the
deceased. Learned counsel contended that the Tribunal has applied mutliplier of
10, whereas multiplier of 17 ought to have been applied to the loss of dependancy.
RENU
2026.09.09 17:15
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

FAO No.5875 of 2002 (O&M) -4-
Likewise, no compensation has been awarded under conventional heads i.e. ‘loss
of consortium’, `loss of estate’ and ‘funeral expenses’ and learned counsel prayed
that adequate compensation be awarded. In support of his contentions, learned
counsel has relied upon 2009(6) SCC 121- Sarla Verma and others Vs. Delhi
Transport Corporation and Another , 2017 (16) SCC 680- National Insurance
Co. Ltd Vs. Pranay Sethi and Other , 2018 (4) R.C.R. (Civil) 333 Magma
General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram alias Chuhru Ram & Others and
(2021) 11 SCC 780 United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Satinder Kaur.
9. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondents argued that the
award in question is well reasoned and justified. The material on file has been
appreciated in the correct perspective while assessing the compensation and no
interference in the same is thus called for.
Issue No.2
10. The claim petition has been instituted by parents of deceased namely
Jitender Singh Minhas who was pursuing MS after completing his MBBS. The
Tribunal has also held that the deceased was pursuing MS Course after completing
the MBBS and was coming to his village for his marriage when the accident took
place resulting in his death. The Tribunal has assessed the loss of dependency of
the parents to the tune of Rs.5,000/- per month and after applying multiplier of 10,
total compensation of Rs.6 lakhs has been awarded.
11. However, in my considered opinion, compensation has not been
adequately assessed and the income of deceased has not been even assessed
before assessing the dependency. Since deceased was a Doctor and had not joined
the service offered by the State of Rajasthan so as to pursue masters in surgery, it
RENU
2026.09.09 17:15
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

FAO No.5875 of 2002 (O&M) -5-
can be assumed that deceased would have earned at least Rs.9,000/- per month
after completing his post graduation in surgery. Accordingly, income of deceased
is taken as Rs.9,000/- per month.
12. Date of birth of the deceased was 2.9.1968 and the accident in
question took place on 9.4.1998 and deceased was thus below 30 years of age.
However, no future prospects have been added to the monthly income of the
deceased. As such, 40% amount has to be added to the monthly income of the
deceased towards future prospects in view of law laid down in Pranay Sethi’s
case (supra) , which takes his income to Rs.12,600/- per month (Rs.9,000/- +
Rs.3,600/-).
13. The claim petition has been filed by the parents of the deceased and
as such, he has left behind two dependents. The deceased was unmarried and as
such, 50% of his income thus has to be deducted towards personal and living
expenses. After deducting a sum of Rs.6,300/- towards personal expenses, the
monthly loss of dependency comes out to Rs.6,300/- (Rs.12,600/- - Rs.6,300/-)
and the annual loss of dependency comes out to Rs.75,600/- per annum
(Rs.6,300/- X 12) .
14. As per guidelines laid down in Sarla Verma’s case (supra) ,
multiplier of 17 has to be applied as deceased was 29 years of age and after
applying the same, the loss of dependency comes to Rs.12,85,200/- (Rs.75,600/-
X 17) .
15. As per law laid down in Pranay Sethi’s case (supra), a sum of
Rs.70,000/- is payable towards conventional heads i.e. Rs.40,000/- towards loss of
consortium, Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate and Rs.15,000/- on account of
RENU
2026.09.09 17:15
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

FAO No.5875 of 2002 (O&M) -6-
funeral expenses. However, the judgment in Pranay Sethi’s case (supra) was
passed in the year 2017 and taking into consideration the price index prevalent in
the year 199 7 when the accident took place, claimants who are parents of
deceased are held entitled to a sum of Rs.30,000/- each towards loss of filial
consortium Rs.10,000/- for loss of estate and Rs.10,000/- for
, and funeral
expenses to claimant No.1 – father of the deceased , which takes the compensation
to Rs.13,65,200/-.
Issue No.3
16. Tribunal has exonerated the Insurance Company to indemnify the
insured but it has been given a right to recover the compensation from the owner
and driver after making payment to the claimants and while holding so, the
observations of learned Tribunal are as under:-
“On this issue, it is proved on record that the driver was possessing a
fake driving licence as per the verification report. It is not disputed
that even in such a case, insurance co. cannot be absolved of its
liability to pay the compensation as claims being not provity to the
contract of insurance are not bound by stipulations of the insurance
policy. Therefore, all the respondents are jointly and severally liable
to pay compensation but in the present case, the insurance co. is
entitled to claim the amount of award from the owner and driver.
Even otherwise also, in the light of the facts on record, ld. Counsel
for the insurance co. did not advance any other arguments except that
he claimed that the insurance co. should be given a right to get the
amount recovered from the owner and the driver. I decide this issue
RENU
2026.09.09 17:15
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

FAO No.5875 of 2002 (O&M) -7-
accordingly and hold that responsibility of the respondents is joint
and sevral but insurance co. has got a right to recover to amount from
the owner as well as the driver/respondent.”
17. However, a perusal of the reasoning given by the Tribunal shows that
no evidence had been led by Insurance Company to establish that the driving
licence produced by the driver was fake. Even the verification report which was
allegedly received has not been exhibited in evidence. No record has been
summoned from the Licensing Authority from where the alleged verification
report was received to establish that the licence produced by the driver was fake.
In case, any such report had been received, the Insurance Company should have
summoned the record to prove that the driving licence was fake. The report, if
any, received was not per se admissible to hold the driving licence to be fake. As
such, Insurance Company has failed to prove that the driving licence was fake.
Moreover, even if, it is assumed that the driving licence was fake, the Insurance
Company can not be exonerated of its liability to indemnify the insured in the
absence of evidence to the effect that there was wilful breach of terms and
conditions of Insurance policy by the insured/owner. Hon’ble Supreme Court in
2022 ACJ 1868,
Rishi Pal Singh Versus New India Assurance Company Limited
and others, has held that owner of the vehicle is expected to check driving skills
of the driver and not to run to the licensing authority to verify genuineness of the
driving licence before appointing a driver and therefore, once the owner is
satisfied that driver is competent to drive the vehicle, it is not expected from him
to verify genuineness of the driving licence issued to the driver and the direction
of ‘pay and recover’ given by the High Court was set aside and it was held that
RENU
2026.09.09 17:15
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

FAO No.5875 of 2002 (O&M) -8-
Insurance Company is liable to indemnify the insured and it cannot recover the
amount from the owner/insured. Recently, Hon’ble Supreme Court in Law Finder
Doc ID #2790918, Hind Samachar Ltd. (Delhi Unit) Versus National Insurance
Company Ltd. And others, has also held that owner of the vehicle is not expected
to verify the authenticity of the driving licence from the licensing authority and he
can only rely upon the licence produced by the prospective driver seeking
employment. In case, Insurance Company seeks to avoid liability or to get “pay
and recover rights” against the insured/owner on the ground of driving licence
being fake, the Insurance Company must establish that the breach was on the part
of the insured, meaning thereby, the insured had deliberately committed a breach
by entrusting the vehicle to a driver who had a fake driving licence or that the
owner did not employ due diligence at the time of handing over the vehicle. It has
been further held that in the absence of pleading or substantiation that owner
allowed the driver to drive a vehicle knowing the licence to be fake, or failed to
employ due diligence in the driver’s employment/entrustment, the High Court
erred in issuing pay and recover directions against the insured-owner. It has been
further held that Insurance Company must prove the willful breach of the policy
condition i.e. entrusting the vehicle to a driver without a valid licence by the
insured in case it wants right of recovery against the insured, even if the driver’s
licence is fake.
18. In the present case also, Insurance Company has failed to establish
that the driving licence was fake or that there was wilful default on the part of the
insured and breach of terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy on account of
the insured handing over the vehicle to a person having a fake driving licence. In
RENU
2026.09.09 17:15
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

FAO No.5875 of 2002 (O&M) -9-
these circumstances, Insurance Company cannot be absolved of its liability to
indemnify the insured and it cannot recover the awarded amount from the
owner/insured. Accordingly, finding of Issue No.3 is not sustainable and same is
reversed and this issue is decided against Insurance Company & it is held that
respondents No.1 to 3 shall be jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to
the claimants.
20. Accordingly, the compensation to be awarded to the
appellants/claimants is assessed as under:-
S.No. Under Head Compensation awarded by
the High Court
1. Monthly income of deceased Rs.9,000/- per month
2. Age of deceased 29 years
3. Future prospects @ 40% Rs.3,600/-
4. Total income Rs.12,600/-
5. Number of dependents 2
6. Deduction towards personal Rs.6,300/-
expenses of the deceased (50%)
7. Monthly loss of dependency Rs.6,300/-
(Rs.12,600/- - Rs.6,300/-)
8. Annual loss of dependency Rs.75,600/-
(Rs.6,300/- X 12)
9. Multiplier 17
10. Compensation on account of Loss Rs.12,85,200/-
of dependency
11. Loss of filial consortium to
claimants No.1 and 2/parents of the
deceased
Rs.30,000/-
(Rs.30,000 X 2)
12. Compensation under conventional
heads i.e. loss of estate and funeral
expenses to claimant No.1
Rs.20,000/-
(Rs.10,000/- X 2)
13,65,200
Total Compensation Rs.
RENU
2026.09.09 17:15
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

FAO No.5875 of 2002 (O&M) -10-
(Rounded off to Rs.13,65,000/-)
Interest 9%
21. Resultantly, the appeal in hand is partly accepted with costs. Since
claimant No.2, who is mother of deceased has already died, the amount of
enhanced compensation be paid to claimant No.1- father of the deceased.
Claimant No.1 is held entitled to the enhanced compensation of Rs.7,65,000/-
( Rs.13,65,200/- - Rs.6,00,000/- ) over and above the compensation awarded by the
Tribunal alongwith interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of
claim petition i.e. 4.9.1998, till realization payable by respondents No.1 to 3,
jointly and severally.
22. Registry is directed to email the authenticated copy of the award to
the respondent Insurance Company in terms of directions issued by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in Writ Petition (Civil) No.534 of 2020 titled Bajaj Allianz
General Insurance Company Versus Union of India and others , decided on
16.03.2021 and Insurance Company shall comply with the directions as issued
under Clause (F) of the said judgment.
23. Pending misc. application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.
(Yashvir Singh Rathor)
Judge
September 07, 2026
renu
Whether Speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether Reportable Yes/No
RENU
2026.09.09 17:15
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document