Trilok Chand v. Narinder Kumar

Brief facts, leading to the filing of present appeal, before this Court, may be summed up, as under:- The claimants, being unfortunate parents of Ajay Kumar, had filed the claim petition, under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act (hereinafter referred to as ‘the M.V. Act’), seeking compensation on account of death of Ajay Kumar, who expired in a roadside accident, involving vehicle No. PB- 03R-9439, (hereinafter referred to as ‘the offending vehicle’), on 25.10.2014, being owned by respondent No. 2 and driven by respondent No. 1, in a rash and negligent manner. The said vehicle was insured with respondent No. 3. 3 2026:HHC:17778

4.1 According to the claimants, deceased Ajay Kumar, at the time of accident, was 20 years of age and was earning Rs. 9000/- per month, as he was running a street vending cart at Laddowal, District Ludhiana, Punjab.

4.2 Elaborating their stand, it has been pleaded by the claimants that on 24.10.2014, their son deceased Ajay Kumar, alongwith one Manpreet Singh, was returning back on his motorcycle, bearing registration No. HP-12T-1991, after re-fueling the same at Laddowal Petrol Pump. When, he was moving towards his street vending cart, then, at about 10:30 p.m., the offending vehicle, being driven by respondent No. 1, in a rash and negligent manner, hit the motorcycle of the deceased. Consequently, Ajay Kumar and Manpreet Singh sustained injuries. Ajay Kumar was taken to L.M. Civil Hospital, Ludhiana, where he was declared to be brought dead. His post-mortem examination was conducted and information was given to Police of Police Station, Laddowal, District Ludhiana and FIR No. 181 of 2014, dated

25.10.2014, was registered under Sections 279, 337, 338, 304-A and 427 IPC, with Police Station, Laddowal, District Ludhiana, Pb. The accident in question has solely been attributed to rash and negligent driving of respondent No. 1. 4 2026:HHC:17778

4.3 The claimants have pleaded about their bright past and bleak future and sought compensation, as claimed in the petition.

5. When put to notice, the claim petition has been contested by the respondents, by filing reply(ies).

6. Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 have filed joint reply, in which, they have taken preliminary objections by pleading that the petition is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties, as the driver, owner and the insurer of Motorcycle No. HP- 12T-1991 have not been impleaded as parties in the petition, and the accident in question had taken place due to rash and negligent driving of the deceased himself.

7. On merits, the contents of the claim petition have mainly been denied for want of knowledge, however, factum of accident has not been disputed, but the same has been attributed to negligence of the rider of the motorcycle.

8. The Insurance Company of the offending vehicle has filed its separate reply, by taking preliminary objections, qua the fact that the claim petition is not maintainable. According to the Insurance Company, the driver of the offending vehicle was not having valid and effective driving license, at the time of accident. As such, the vehicle is stated 5 2026:HHC:17778 to be driven, in violation of the terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy.

9. On merits, the contents of the claim petition have mainly been denied for want of knowledge. Thus, the respondents have prayed for dismissal of the claim petition.

10. On the basis of above facts, a prayer has been made by the respondents to dismiss the claim petition.

11. From the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed, by the learned Tribunal, vide order dated

5.2.2016:-

1. Whether deceased Ajay Kumar died due to accident dated 24.10.2014 because of rash and negligent driving by respondent No.1 of vehicle bearing registration No.PB-03R-9439, as alleged? OPP.

2. If issue No.1 is proved in affirmative whether the petitioners are entitled to compensation, if so, how much and from whom? OPP

3. Whether the petition is bad for non joinder of necessary parties, as alleged? OPR

4. Whether the claim petition is not maintainable? OPR-3

5. Whether the driver of vehicle bearing registration No. PB-03R-9439 was not holding valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident. If so its effect? OPR3

6. Whether vehicle bearing registration No. PB- 03R- 9439 was being driven at the relevant time in violation of the terms and conditions of insurance policy and provisions of M.V. Act as alleged? OPR-3.

7. Relief 6 2026:HHC:17778

12. Thereafter, the parties to the lis were directed to adduce evidence and after hearing learned counsel for the parties, the claim petition was allowed, as referred to above.

13. In the present case, neither the owner nor driver, nor the Insurance Company has preferred the appeal. Only the claimants, being dis-satisfied with the award, have preferred the present appeal, with a prayer to enhance the amount of compensation on the ground that the learned Tribunal has wrongly taken the income of deceased Ajay Kumar, during his lifetime, as Rs. 6000/- per month, whereas, it has been proved that he was earning a sum of Rs. 9000/- per month, at the relevant time. In this regard, the claimants have relied upon the evidence of PW-3 Tarlok Chand and PW-4 Vipan Kumar.

14. According to the claimants, addition of 30% in the income of Ajay Kumar has not been given on account of future prospects and the fact that the deceased was the sole bread earner of his family, has not been considered by the learned Tribunal.

15. On the basis of above facts, Mr. Sanjeev Kuthiala, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Ms. Tamanna Sharma, Advocate, has prayed that amount of compensation may kindly be enhanced. 7 2026:HHC:17778

16. The prayer, so made, has been opposed by Ms. Devyani Sharma, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Ms.Soma Thakur, Advocate, appearing for respondent No. 3 (Insurance Company) on the ground that learned Tribunal has already awarded just compensation and the award passed by the learned Tribunal, does not require any interference, by this Court.

17. On the basis of above facts, a prayer has been made to dismiss the appeal.

18. In this case, neither owner, nor driver nor Insurance Company has assailed the award passed by the learned Tribunal. In such situation, the only question, which arises for determination, before this Court, is with regard to the fact as to whether amount of compensation, which has been awarded to the claimants, by the learned Tribunal, falls within the definition of ‘just compensation’ or not?

19. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Oriental Insurance Company Limited vs. Mohd. Nasir and another, (2009) 2 SCC (Cri.) 987 has held that the provisions of M.V. Act are beneficial piece of legislation and the endeavour of the Court/Tribunal should be to provide “just compensation”. The relevant paras 23 and 24 of the judgment are reproduced as under:- 8 2026:HHC:17778 “23. Both, the 1923 Act and 1988 Act are beneficent legislation insofar as they provide for pay- ment of compensation to the workmen employed by the employers and/or by use of motor vehicle by the owner thereof and/or the insurer to the petitioners suffering permanent disability. The amount of compensation is to be deter- mined in terms of the provisions of the respective Acts. Whereas in terms of the 1923 Act, the Commissioner who is a quasi judicial authority, is bound to apply the principles and the fac- tors laid down in the Act for the purpose of determin- ing the compensation, Section 168 of the 1988 Act en- joins the Tribunal to make an award determining the amount of compensation which appears to be just.

24. Both the Acts aim at providing for expeditious relief to the victims of accident. In these cases, the accidents took place by reason of use of motor vehicles. Both the statutes are beneficial ones for the workmen as also the third par- ties. The benefits thereof are available only to the per- specified under the Act besides under the Contract of Insurance. The statutes, therefore, deserve liberal construction. The legislative intent contained therein is required to be interpreted with a view to give effect thereto.” (self emphasis supplied)

20. Similar view has also been taken by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sushila & Others versus Sudhakar & Another, 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 343. Relevant paragraphs 19 and 20 of the judgment, are reproduced, as under:- “19. In our considered opinion, although the High Court had enhanced the compensation, it was on the lower side. The cardinal principle of awarding compensation in the cases of motor accidents is to provide a “just compensation” to the victim and/or the distressed dependents of the deceased. The term “just” implies that the compensation must be fair, reasonable, and equitable as per the applicable legal standards. The compensation should not be too meagre, nor should it be excessive. The sole foundation of providing monetary compensation is to make efforts to put the dependents of the deceased at the same financial position that they 9 2026:HHC:17778