03.2026 Mamta Dev ta Devi @ Mandeep Kaur others & Ors. v. Gaurav and av & Ors.

Mr. Bhag Singh, Advocate for ate for the appellants. Mr. Vinay Kumar Arya, Advo Advocate for respondent No.1. Mr. Rajbir Singh, Advocate for respondent No.4-Ins.Co. for Mr. Sanjeev Goyal, Advocat vocate **** PANKAJ J KAJ JAIN, J. (ORAL) [1] Appellants are the claimants s ants seeking compensation on accou account of death of ath of Gurpreet Singh in a motor vehic .2013. r vehicular accident dated 21.11.2013. [2] The claim petition filed by th by the claimants under Section 166 o 166 of the Motor otor Vehicles Act, 1988 has been been dismissed by the Tribunal whi observing rving as under:- “23. However, the claimants l nts led no evidence in shape of MLR LR or PMR to establish that deceased ased suffered injuries in the accident ent in question and died thereof. The The challan and charge-sheet (Ex. P x. PD and Ex.PC respectively) sho showing respondent No.1-driver challaned and facing trial for c for causing death of Gurpreet Singh, gh, is not definite and conclusive pi e piece of evidence in themselves ves to establish that death of deceased ased Gurpreet Singh took place due due to the injuries suffered in acciden ident in question. It is well establish lished that Tribunal is to come at findin indings on the evidence led before it an it and RAJNEESH SHARMA 2026.03.13 15:07 I agree to specified portions of this document evidence like copies of charge sh e sheet, challan of criminal case are n re not 2 FAO-2963-2015 2015 (O&M) conclusive piece of evidence, th e, they may be taken as corroborati rative piece of evidence. In present sent case, only medical evidence i ce i.e. certified copy of MLR or PMR MR or statement of medical expert wh rt who conducted post mortem on the de he dead body of deceased, were best an st and conclusive piece of evidence to e to establish that the death had tak place from the injuries suffered red in the accident in question. The or e oral account of PWs is not sufficient ient and conclusive piece of evidence nce to establish injuries or death as as consequence of injuries, alleged egedly suffered in the accident. The he claimants, thus, failed to establi stablish material nexus between accid accident and injuries and death th as consequence thereof.” [3] The only reason for which the ich the appellants have been non-suite suited is the absen e absence of evidence to establish th the causal relationship between th een the accident an ent and the death of the deceased. [4] Along with the present appe t appeal, the claimants have filed filed an application cation under Order XLI Rule 27 C 27 CPC seeking permission to lea to lead additional ional evidence in order to prove the ve the postmortem report appended nded as Annexure A xure A along with the application. [5] Keeping in view the fact th act that the claim petition has bee as been dismissed o issed only on account of absence o ence of the postmortem report/medic medical record to d to establish the causal relations lationship between the death and th and the accident, ent, this Court finds that the eviden evidence sought to be adduced at th at the appellate st llate stage is necessary for just adjudic adjudication of the case. The docume cument sought to b ht to be produced is a public docum document and is per se admissible sible in evidence. nce. Consequently, the findings reco gs recorded by the Tribunal are hereb hereby set aside. . It is held in terms of the po eceased- the postmortem report that deceased Gurpreet S reet Singh died on account of the of the motor vehicular accident date nt dated RAJNEESH SHARMA 2026.03.13 15:07 I agree to specified portions of this document 3 FAO-2963-2015 2015 (O&M)

21.11.2013 .2013 due to the rash and negligent dr ent driving of respondent No.1. [6] The deceased was 35 years years of age as per the postmorte tmortem report. Th The date of accident is 21.11.2

1.11.2013. As per the pleadings, th gs, the deceased is ased is claimed to be a milk vendor, ndor, though there is no evidence, the decease eceased is assessed as a skilled labour labour and his income is being assesse assessed as per the m r the minimum wages notified by the by the State of Haryana for the releva relevant date i.e. ₹ ₹ 5731/- per month. Future pros re prospects of 40% need to be adde added. Multiplier o iplier of ‘16’ needs to be applied. De d. Deduction of 1/4th towards person personal expenses is nses is made in terms of ratio of law of law laid down in Sarla Verma an ma and others vers versus Delhi Transport Corporat poration and another’, 2009(3) RC 3) RCR (Civil) 77 il) 77. There are four claimants. Eac s. Each of them is held entitled for a d for an amount of nt of Rs.48,400/- for loss of consort onsortium. The claimants are also he lso held entitled fo led for an amount of Rs.18,000/- for l for loss of estate and Rs.18,000/- funeral exp ral expenses. [7] The aforesaid awarded compen terest @ ompensation shall also carry interest @ 7% per an per annum from the date of instit institution of the claim petition i. tion i.e.

13.03.2013 .2013 till the date of actual realization lization. [8] [9] The appeal stands disposed of sed off in the above terms. All pending miscellaneous a eous application(s), if any, stands disposed of ed off. .2026 09.03.2026 ‘R. Sharma' (PANKAJ JAIN) JUDGE RAJNEESH SHARMA 2026.03.13 15:07 I agree to specified portions of this document Whether speaking/ reasoned Whether reportable : : Yes/No Yes/No