Smt. Raj Bala & Ors. v. Ravinder Kumar & Ors.
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
- Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 s. 140
Judgment
The present appeal has been preferred by the claimants-appellants The present appeal has been preferred by the claimants The present appeal has been preferred by the claimants against the award dated 13.06.2003 passed by the learned Motor against the award dated 13.06.2003 passed by the learned Motor against the award dated 13.06.2003 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Rohtak (hereinafter referred to as “the Accident Claims Tribunal, Rohtak (hereinafter referred to as “the Accident Claims Tribunal, Rohtak (hereinafter referred to as “the ition arising out of a motor vehicular learned Tribunal”) in a claim petition arising out of a motor vehicular learned Tribunal”) in a claim pet accident dated 10.07.2000 involving Tata Sumo bearing registration accident dated 10.07.2000 involving Tata Sumo bearing registration accident dated 10.07.2000 involving Tata Sumo bearing registration No. HR- 46/4045 and Jeep bearing registration No. HR-46-A/6138, -46/4045 and Jeep bearing registration No. HR resulting in the death of Jai Kanwar @ Jai Kumar, whereby the resulting in the death of Jai Kanwar @ Jai Kumar, whereby the resulting in the death of Jai Kanwar @ Jai Kumar, whereby the learned Tribunal granted only ₹50,000/ learned Tribunal granted ₹50,000/- under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 on the principle of no-fault liability while Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 on the principle of no Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 on the principle of no holding that rash and negligent driving of either of the offending holding that rash and negligent driving of either of the offending holding that rash and negligent driving of either of the offending vehicles was not proved. vehicles was not proved. 2
Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that on 10.07.2000 at around Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that on 10.0 Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that on 10.0 10:00 A.M., the deceased, Jai Kanwar @ Jai Kumar Gulia, was going 10:00 A.M., the deceased, Jai Kanwar @ Jai Kumar Gulia, was going 10:00 A.M., the deceased, Jai Kanwar @ Jai Kumar Gulia, was going from Rohtak to village Assan. He was riding pillion on a scooter (No. from Rohtak to village Assan. He was riding pillion on a scooter (No. from Rohtak to village Assan. He was riding pillion on a scooter (No. 8408) driven by Manoj Kumar (PW-3). When they reached 8408) driven by Manoj Kumar (PW HR-12-8408) driven by Manoj Kumar (PW near Mohindra Public School on Sonipat Road, Rohtak, a Jeep (No. near Mohindra Public School on Sonipat Road near Mohindra Public School on Sonipat Road A/6138) driven by respondent No. 6 was moving ahead of HR-46-A/6138) driven by respondent No. 6 was moving ahead of A/6138) driven by respondent No. 6 was moving ahead of them. The jeep driver suddenly applied the brakes without giving any them. The jeep driver suddenly applied the brakes without giving any them. The jeep driver suddenly applied the brakes without giving any signal. To avoid hitting the jeep, the scooter driver turned to the right signal. To avoid hitting the jeep, the scooter driver turned to the right signal. To avoid hitting the jeep, the scooter driver turned to the right to overtake it. At that moment, a Tata Sumo (No. HR to overtake it. At that moment , a Tata Sumo (No. HR-46/4045) driven by respondent No. 1 came from the opposite side at a high speed and by respondent No. 1 came from the opposite side at a high speed and by respondent No. 1 came from the opposite side at a high speed and hit the scooter. Due to the accident, the deceased suffered serious hit the scooter. Due to the accident, the deceased suffered serious hit the scooter. Due to the accident, the deceased suffered serious injuries and was taken to the Post Graduate Institute of Medical injuries and was taken to the Post Graduate Institute of Medical injuries and was taken to the Post Graduate Institute of Medical Rohtak. After staying under treatment for 20 days, Sciences (PGIMS), Rohtak. After staying under treatment for 20 days, Sciences (PGIMS),
he died on 30.07.2000. Regarding this incident, an FIR (Ex. PB) was he died on 30.07.2000. Regarding this incident, an FIR (Ex. PB) was he died on 30.07.2000. Regarding this incident, an FIR (Ex. PB) was registered on 27.07.2000 at Police Station Sadar, Rohtak. The registered on 27.07.2000 at Police Station Sadar, Rohtak. registered on 27.07.2000 at Police Station Sadar, Rohtak. respondents contested the claim petition by filing their written respondents contested the claim petition by filing their written respondents contested the claim petition by filing their written s. After framing the issues, the learned Tribunal evaluated statements. After framing the issues, the learned Tribunal evaluated statement the oral testimonies of witnesses (PW-1 to PW the oral testimonies of witnesses (PW 1 to PW-3 and RW-1 to RW-3) along with the documentary evidence. Consequently, the learned along with the documentary evidence. Consequently, the along with the documentary evidence. Consequently, the Tribunal concluded that the accident occurred due to the fault of the Tribunal concluded that the accident occurred due to the fault of t Tribunal concluded that the accident occurred due to the fault of t scooterist and that the claimants failed to prove any negligence by the scooterist and that the claimants failed to prove any negligence by the scooterist and that the claimants failed to prove any negligence by the offending drivers. Accordingly, the claim under Section 166 was offending drivers. Accordingly, the claim under Section 166 was offending drivers. Accordingly, the claim under Section 166 was rejected, and the impugned award was passed restricting the relief rejected, and the impugned award was passed restricting the relief rejected, and the impugned award was passed restricting the relief only to 'No 'No-Fault Liability'. Aggrieved and dissat . Aggrieved and dissatisfied with the award, 3 appellants have preferred the present appeal for its the claimants-appellants have preferred the present appeal for its the claimants modification and enhancement of compensation. modification and enhancement of compensation. modification and enhancement of compensation.
Learned counsel for the appellants contended that the impugned Learned counsel for the appellants contended that the impugned Learned counsel for the appellants contended that the impugned award is perverse and based on a complete misappreciation of the award is perverse and based on a complete misappreciation of the award is perverse and based on a complete misappreciation of the evidence on record. It was argued that the learned Tribunal grossly evidence on record. It was argued that the learned Tribunal grossly evidence on record. It was argued that the learned Tribunal grossly erred in shifting the entire blame onto the scooteristwhile completely erred in shifting the entire blame onto the erred in shifting the entire blame onto the ignoring the composite negligence of the offending drivers; the jeep ignoring the composite negligence of the offending drivers; the jeep ignoring the composite negligence of the offending drivers; the jeep driver had applied sudden brakes without any signal, and the driver had applied sudden brakes without any signal, and the driver had applied sudden brakes without any signal, and the oncoming Tata Sumo was being driven at a reckless speed in a school oncoming Tata Sumo was being driven at a reckless speed in a school oncoming Tata Sumo was being driven at a reckless speed in a school zone.
It was further submitted that the testimony of the eye-witness, zone. It was further submitted that the testim zone. It was further submitted that the testim 3), was wrongly discarded on minor, hyper- Manoj Kumar (PW-3), was wrongly discarded on minor, hyper Manoj Kumar (PW technical contradictions. Learned counsel heavily stressed that the technical contradictions. Learned counsel heavily stressed that the technical contradictions. Learned counsel heavily stressed that the Tribunal erred in restricting the compensation to a mere ₹50,000/- Tribunal erred in restricting the compensation to a mere Tribunal erred in restricting the compensation to a mere under Section 140 of the Act on account of 'no-fault liability' instead under Section 140 of the Act on account under Section 140 of the Act on account of deciding the claim under Section 166. It was urged that the loss of of deciding the claim under Section 166.
It was urged that the loss of of deciding the claim under Section 166. It was urged that the loss of dependency was completely ignored despite clear proof that the dependency was completely ignored despite clear proof that the dependency was completely ignored despite clear proof that the deceased was a permanent employee as Lower Division Clerk deceased was a permanent employee deceased was a permanent employee (L.D.C.) with the Uttar Haryana BijliVitran Nigam (L.D.C.) with the BijliVitran Nigam (U.H.B.V.N.), Rohtak, drawing a gross monthly salary of ₹7,591/-. Furthermore, the Rohtak, drawing a gross monthly salary of Rohtak, drawing a gross monthly salary of Tribunal completely failed to apply the correct multiplier of 15 and Tribunal completely failed to apply the correct multiplier of 15 and Tribunal completely failed to apply the correct multiplier of 15 and the unit system, leaving the widow and minor children without the unit system, leaving the widow and minor children without the unit system, leaving the widow and minor children without altogether omitted the medical expenses of financial support, and altogether omitted the medical expenses of financial support, and ₹50,000/- incurred during his 20 days of hospitalization as well as the - incurred during his 20 days of hospitalization as well as the statutory awards under conventional heads like loss of consortium and statutory awards under conventional heads like loss of consortium and statutory awards under conventional heads like loss of consortium and funeral expenses.
On these grounds, learned counsel prayed that the funeral expenses. On these grounds, learned counsel prayed that the funeral expenses. On these grounds, learned counsel prayed that the 4 dings on Issue No. 1 be set aside, the appeal be allowed, and the findings on Issue No. 1 be set aside, the appeal be allowed, and the dings on Issue No. 1 be set aside, the appeal be allowed, and the compensation be enhanced substantially with interest. Reliance has compensation be enhanced substantially with interest. compensation be enhanced substantially with interest. of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in been placed upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in been placed upon the judgme Khenyei v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. (2015) 9 SCC 273. Khenyei v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Khenyei v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd.
contra, learned counsel for respondent No.4– National Insurance contra, learned counsel for respondent No. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.
Company and respondent No.7–Insurance Company Company Insurance Company contended that the impugned award does not suffer from any illegality or perversity the impugned award does not suffer from any illegality or perversity the impugned award does not suffer from any illegality or perversity and has been passed after due appreciation of oral as well as and has been passed after due appreciation of oral as well as and has been passed after due appreciation of oral as well as documentary evidence. It is maintained that the findings recorded by documentary evidence. It is maintained that the findings recorded by documentary evidence. It is maintained that the findings recorded by reasoned and do not call for any the learned Tribunal are well-reasoned and do not call for any the learned Tribunal are well interference by this Court. Consequently, it is prayed that the appeal, interference by this Court.
Consequently, it is prayed that the appeal, interference by this Court. Consequently, it is prayed that the appeal, being devoid of merit, deserves dismissal. being devoid of merit, deserves dismissal. being devoid of merit, deserves dismissal. heard the learned counsel for both parties and have carefully I have heard the learned counsel for both parties and have carefully heard the learned counsel for both parties and have carefully book, the records of the learned Tribunal and gone through the paper-book, the records of the learned Tribunal and gone through the paper the evidence led by the parties. the evidence led by the part This Court finds that the approach adopted by the learned Tribunal This Court finds that the approach adopted by the learned Tribunal This Court finds that the approach adopted by the learned Tribunal suffers from patent while deciding Issue No.1 suffers from patent while deciding Issue No.1 illegality and illegality and misapplication of the settled principles governing motor accident misapplication of the settled principles governing motor accident misapplication of the settled principles governing motor accident compensation claims.
Even if the version put forth by the ld. Tribunal compensation claims. Even if the version put forth by the ld. Tribunal compensation claims. Even if the version put forth by the ld. Tribunal is accepted that the scooter driver Manoj Kumar was negligent while is accepted that the scooter driver Manoj Kumar was negligent while is accepted that the scooter driver Manoj Kumar was negligent while vertake the jeep, the said negligence could not have attempting to overtake the jeep, the said negligence could not have attempting to o been automatically attributed to deceased Jai Kanwar @ Jai Kumar, been automatically attributed to deceased Jai Kanwar @ Jai Kumar, been automatically attributed to deceased Jai Kanwar @ Jai Kumar, who was merely a pillion rider on the scooter. There is neither any who was merely a pillion rider on the scooter. There is neither any who was merely a pillion rider on the scooter.
There is neither any pleading nor any evidence on record to suggest that the deceased had pleading nor any evidence on record to suggest that the deceased had pleading nor any evidence on record to suggest that the deceased had contributed towards the occurrence in any manner whatsoever. It is an contributed towards the occurrence in any manner whatsoever. It is an contributed towards the occurrence in any manner whatsoever. It is an 5 admitted factual position on record that at the time of the accident, the admitted factual position on record that at the time of the accident, the admitted factual position on record that at the time of the accident, the deceased, Jai Kanwar, was merely riding as a pillion passenger on the deceased, Jai Kanwar, was merely riding as a pillion passenger on the deceased, Jai Kanwar, was merely riding as a pillion passenger on the wheeler. The handle, the brakes, the speed, and the entire physical wheeler.
The handle, the brakes, the s two-wheeler. The handle, the brakes, the s control of the vehicle were in the hands of the driver, Manoj. The control of the vehicle were in the hands of the driver, Manoj. The control of the vehicle were in the hands of the driver, Manoj. The record clearly shows that it was Manoj who attempted to overtake the record clearly shows that it was Manoj who attempted to overtake the record clearly shows that it was Manoj who attempted to overtake the vehicle ahead and turned the scooter towards the right side, leading to vehicle ahead and turned the scooter towards the right side, leading to vehicle ahead and turned the scooter towards the right side, leading to llision. This Court the unfortunate collision. This Court the unfortunate co it completely it completely incomprehensible that the learned Tribunal has somehow attributed incomprehensible that the learned Tribunal has somehow attributed incomprehensible that the learned Tribunal has somehow attributed fault or liability to Jai Kanwar.
A pillion rider is a passive passenger. fault or liability to Jai Kanwar. A pillion rider is a passive passenger. fault or liability to Jai Kanwar. A pillion rider is a passive passenger. By no stretch of imagination or physical possibility can a person By no stretch of imagination or physical possibility can a person By no stretch of imagination or physical possibility can a person the rear seat be held responsible for an overtaking maneuver sitting on the rear seat be held responsible for an overtaking maneuver sitting on or a sudden turn executed by the driver. Jai Kanwar had no steering or a sudden turn executed by the driver. Jai Kanwar had no steering or a sudden turn executed by the driver. Jai Kanwar had no steering control, no authority over the speed, and absolutely no role in the control, no authority over the speed, and absolutely no role in the control, no authority over the speed, and absolutely no role in the decision- making process of driving the vehicle.
To visit the alleged -making process of driving the vehicle. To visit t the driver upon an innocent passenger is rashness or negligence of the driver upon an innocent passenger is rashness or negligence of factually impossible and a patent perversity in law. His personal factually impossible and a patent perversity in law. His personal factually impossible and a patent perversity in law. His personal contributory negligence is absolute zero percent contributory negligence is absolute zero percent. Additionally, delay of 17 days in lodging the FIR [accident on 17 days in lodging the FIR [accident on 10.07.2000 and FIR on does not affect the validity of the claim, as prompt 27.07.2000] does not affect the validity of the claim, as prompt 27.07.2000] registration is not a condition precedent under the Motor Vehicles Act. registration is not a condition precedent under the Motor Vehicles Act. registration is not a condition precedent under the Motor Vehicles Act.
In a fatal accident, the immediate priority of a grieving family is In a fatal accident, the immediate priority of a grieving family is In a fatal accident, the immediate priority of a grieving family is ock of bereavement and perform final naturally to cope with the shock of bereavement and perform final naturally to cope with the sh rituals rather than rushing to a police station. rituals rather than rushing to a police station. rituals rather than rushing to a police station.
The learned Tribunal has committed a severe legal error by The learned Tribunal has committed a severe legal error by The learned Tribunal has committed a severe legal error by misinterpreting and misapplying the theory of "No-Fault Liability" to misinterpreting and misapplying the theory of "No misinterpreting and misapplying the theory of "No 6 restrict or limit the scope of this case. The concept of "No-Fault restrict or limit the scope of this case. restrict or limit the scope of this case. Liability" under the Motor Vehicles Act is a beneficial, statutory Liability" under the Motor Vehicles Act is a beneficial, statutory Liability" under the Motor Vehicles Act is a beneficial, statutory protection meant exclusively to assist the victim. It ensures that a protection meant exclusively to assist the victim. It ensures that a protection meant exclusively to assist the victim. It ensures that a victim or their family can claim minimum relief without having to victim or their family can claim minimum relief without having to victim or their family can claim minimum relief without having to endure a long legal battle to prove who was negligent. endure a long legal battle t o prove who was negligent.
It is a legal The Tribunal fundamentally misdirected floor, not a legal ceiling. The Tribunal fundamentally misdirected floor, not a legal ceiling. itself by assuming that because the passenger Jai Kanwar committed itself by assuming that because the passenger Jai Kanwar committed itself by assuming that because the passenger Jai Kanwar committed "no fault," his case must be limited or viewed through the restrictive "no fault," his case must be limited or viewed through the restrictive "no fault," his case must be limited or viewed through the restrictive fault framework. This is a complete inversion of the law. lens of a no-fault framework. This is a complete inversion of the law. lens of a This is a full-fledged claim petition filed under This is a full fledged claim petition filed under Section 166 of the , where the drivers of the offending vehicles were Motor Vehicles Act, where the drivers of the offending vehicles were Motor Vehicles Act clearly negligent.
Once it is established that the drivers were negligent clearly negligent. Once it is established that the driver clearly negligent. Once it is established that the driver and the passenger was completely innocent, the case becomes a and the passenger was completely innocent, the case becomes a and the passenger was completely innocent, the case becomes a textbook matter of Composite Negligence textbook matter of Composite Negligence. The Tribunal cannot use the "no- fault" status of the deceased to insulate the insurance -fault" status of the deceased to insulate the insurance companies from paying full, dynamic damages. The absence of fault companies from paying full, dynamic damages. The companies from paying full, dynamic damages. The on the part of Jai Kanwar does not lower the liability of the on the part of Jai Kanwar does not lower the liability of the on the part of Jai Kanwar does not lower the liability of the wrongdoers; it amplifies it, making the tortfeasors fully answerable for wrongdoers; it amplifies it, making the tortfeasors fully answerable for wrongdoers; it amplifies it, making the tortfeasors fully answerable for awarding "just compensation" covering loss of dependency, loss of awarding "just compensation" covering loss of dependency, loss of awarding "just compensation" covering loss of dependency, loss of life, and consortium.
When a person loses their life in a motor life, and consortium. When a person l life, and consortium. When a person l accident, the primary claim is for the loss of dependency and loss of accident, the primary claim is for the loss of dependency and loss of accident, the primary claim is for the loss of dependency and loss of estate under Section 166. The lack of medical or hospital bills does estate under Section 166. The lack of medical or hospital bills does estate under Section 166. The lack of medical or hospital bills does not wipe away the hard fact of death. Applying the strict law laid not wipe away the hard fact of death. Applying the strict law laid not wipe away the hard fact of death. Applying the strict law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in down by the Hon’ble Sup reme Court in Khenyei v. New India
Questions this judgment answers
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — s. 140.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Punjab & Haryana High Court, on 26 May 2026. The bench was AMARINDER SINGH GREWAL.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.