The High Court
Case Details
XOBJC-278-CII FAO-3180-2016 2016(O&M) CII-2016 (O&M) & -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJA IN TH AT CHANDIGAR IGARH NJAB AND HARYANA (cid:1) 120 -278-CII-2016 (O&M) & No.3180 of 2016 (O&M) XOBJC- FAO No.3 Reserved Pronounc Uploaded erved on:14.11.2025(cid:1) nounced on:19.11.2025 oaded on: 21.11.2025(cid:1) National Insuranc surance Company Limited ...Appellant(cid:1) Sukhi Devi and o i and others ents(cid:1) ... Respondents Versus 2. XOBJC-279 279-CII-2016 (O&M) and FAO-319 3193-2016 (O&M) (cid:1) National Insuranc surance Company Limited ...Appellant(cid:1) Sukhi Devi and i and others ents(cid:1) ... Respondents Versus CORAM : HON HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMAR MARINDER SINGH GREWAL te for Ms. Mallika Dhillon, Advocate for Present: Ms. Mr. Mr. S.S. Sidhu, Advocate for the appellants. for t r. Sanjeev Goyal, Advocate Mr. Mr. Aksshay Sharma, Advocate, Mr. for r for respondents No.1 & 2-Cross Obj for respondents No.1 to 3- Cross Ob for r Objectors in FAO-3180-2016. oss Objectors in FAO-3193-2016. *****(cid:1) *** AMARINDER S DER SINGH GREWAL, J. C.M. No.11431 C.M. No.11507 1431-CII of 2016 in FAO No.3180 of 1507-CII of 2016 in FAO No.3193 of 180 of 2016 193 of 2016 Both aforesaid applications have be Both icant- ave been preferred by the applicant appellant/insuran nsurance company seeking condonatio filing onation of delay of 20 days in filing the appeals.
Legal Reasoning
PANKAJ KUMAR 2025.11.21 15:12 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh XOBJC-278-CII FAO-3180-2016 2016(O&M) CII-2016 (O&M) & -2- For the reasons stated in the appli For owed. applications, the same are allowed. Delay of 20 days 0 days in filing the appeals is condoned ndoned. C.M. No.23662 C.M. No.23665 3662-CII of 2016 in Cross Objection 3665-CII of 2016 in Cross Objection ections No.278-CII of 2016 ections No.279-CII of 2016 Both the aforesaid applications Both y the tions have been preferred by the respondents-cros cross objectors/claimants seeking co ays in ing condonation of delay of 6 days in re-filing the cross e cross objections. For the reasons stated in the appli For owed. applications, the same are allowed. Delay of 6 days i days in re-filing the cross objections is tions is condoned. C.M. No.23663 C.M. No.23666 3-CII of 2016 in Cross Objection 6-CII of 2016 in Cross Objection ections No.278-CII of 2016 ections No.279-CII of 2016 Both the aforesaid applications Both y the tions have been preferred by the respondents-cros cross objectors/claimants seeking co days ing condonation of delay of 46 days in filing the cross e cross objections. For the reasons stated in the appli For owed. applications, the same are allowed. Delay of 46 days 6 days in filing the cross objections is ons is condoned. Main Cases 1. This order shall dispose of two appe This rising o appeals, i.e. FAO No.3180 (arising out of MACT No CT No.11 of 2015) and FAO No.3193 ACT 3193 of 2016 (arising out of MACT No.12 of 2015) 015) as well as cross objections filed arisen filed therein, as the same have arisen out of the same same accident, challenging awards y the dated 27.01.2016 passed by the learned Motor A otor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Sang to as l, Sangrur (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Tribunal’). l’). Both the aforesaid appeals y the peals have been preferred by the insurance compa company challenging the award on and ard on the ground of liability and quantum of comp compensation whereas the cross obj ed by ss objections have been preferred by PANKAJ KUMAR 2025.11.21 15:12 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh XOBJC-278-CII FAO-3180-2016 2016(O&M) CII-2016 (O&M) & -3- the respondents dents-claimants seeking enhancement sake ement of compensation. For the sake of convenience, f ence, facts are being taken from FAO N FAO No.3180 of 2016. 2. Succinctly, the facts of the case are Succ ght of se are that on the intervening night of 18/19.10.2014, K 014, Kulwinder Singh (deceased) wa to his d) was travelling from Patran to his village in a Swif a Swift car bearing No.PB-13AJ-3006 ti and 3006 along with his wife-Jyoti and one relative nam namely Sohan Singh. The deceased speed eased was driving at a normal speed on the correct sid ect side of the road, with his wife seat Singh fe seated beside him and Sohan Singh on the rear seat. A seat. At about 1:00 a.m., near the Ele ir car he Electricity Grid, Moonak, their car collided with a ith a truck-trolla No. RB-06GB-30 to as 3070 (hereinafter referred to as offending vehicl vehicle), which had been parked in t ithout d in the middle of the road without parking lights, in hts, indicators, or any other statutory ness, tutory warning. Due to the darkness, the deceased cou ed could not detect the negligently pa d the tly parked offending vehicle and the car struck its re its rear portion, resulting in Kulwin being ulwinder Singh and his wife being fatally crushed, shed, while Sohan Singh survived th s also ived the accident. The car was also severely damage amaged. Consequently, on Sohan S o.138 han Singh’s statement, FIR No.138 dated 19.10.201 0.2014 was registered at Police St ice Station Moonak under Sections ctions 304-A, 283, and , and 427 IPC against the driver of the after, of the offending vehicle. Thereafter, in the claim pet im petition preferred by legal repres d, the representatives of the deceased, the learned Tribunal ibunal while awarding compensation es of sation to the legal representatives of deceased, held th held the insurance company of the of ble to the offending vehicle to be liable to pay the compens mpensation so awarded by it. Hence filed Hence, the insurance company filed aforesaid appeals ppeals challenging the liability fasten ctions fastened upon it and cross-objections have been prefer referred by the cross-objectors/claim nt of claimants seeking enhancement of compensation aw ion awarded qua death of Kulwinder S nder Singh and his wife, Jyoti. PANKAJ KUMAR 2025.11.21 15:12 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh XOBJC-278-CII FAO-3180-2016 2016(O&M) CII-2016 (O&M) & -4- 3.
Legal Reasoning
Learned counsel for the appellant-ins Lea 3180- insurance company in FAO-3180 2016 and FAO- -3193-2016 contended that the lea iding the learned Tribunal erred in deciding issue no.1 while while holding that Hansraj, the drive was driver of the offending vehicle was negligent in caus n causing the accident whereas the dec ent in the deceased himself was negligent in driving the car w car when he collided with a stationa ide of tationary truck parked on the side of the road, as is ev s is evident from the FIR (supra). It wa arned was further urged that the learned Tribunal had wro wrongly made a deduction of 1/3 1/3rd towards personal expenses of ses of the deceased, wh ed, whereas, since deceased’s wife als d the ife also died in the accident and the parents are the c e the claimants, a deduction of one h made one half ought to have been made towards persona ersonal expenses. It was further con d contended that the Tribunal had applied an incorr incorrect multiplier by considering th ereas ring the age of the deceased, whereas in a case where t here the parents are the claimants, th hould nts, the appropriate multiplier should be based on the on their age. It was also contended e not tended that parents-in-law were not entitled to file c file claim petition seeking compensa in- pensation for death of daughter-in law. In this reg is regard, reliance was placed upon dinate upon the judgment by a Coordinate Bench of this Co his Court in Rajinder Pal Vs. Jaswan ivil) swant Singh (1999) 1 RCR (Civil) 643. Lastly, it ly, it was contended that when a ve ed or n a vehicle driven by a deceased or injured person h rson hits a stationary vehicle from b gence rom behind, contributory negligence must be attribute tributed to the deceased/injured. In th ed on . In this regard reliance is placed on the judgments pa nts passed by the Hon’ble Supreme C Ors. eme Court in Usha Rajkhova & Ors. v. Prominent Ind t Industries & Ors., CA No. 1088 of hers 88 of 2008 and Raj Rani and others Vs. Oriental Insu Insurance Company Limited and o nd others (2009) 13 SCC 654. 4. Learned counsel for Lear the respon mants respondents/cross-objectors/claimants contended that th that the learned Tribunal had rightly ver of ightly held that Hansraj, the driver of the offending ve ing vehicle, was negligent in causing , it is causing the accident. However, it is PANKAJ KUMAR 2025.11.21 15:12 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh XOBJC-278-CII FAO-3180-2016 2016(O&M) CII-2016 (O&M) & -5- submitted that t that the Tribunal wrongly and ille e of d illegally assessed the income of deceased Kulwin ulwinder Singh at Rs.6500/- per mo dings er month, despite specific pleadings and evidence pro proving that he was earning Rs.15 urther 15,000/- per month. It is further urged that the Tr the Tribunal erred in applying a multi ew of multiplier of 17, whereas, in view of the law laid dow d down in Sarla Verma v. DTC (200 priate (2009) 6 SCC 121, the appropriate multiplier for a for a 22-year-old deceased falls at 1 led to ls at 18. The Tribunal also failed to award compensat pensation towards love and affection a refore ction and loss of estate, and therefore the compensation nsation deserves to be enhanced. 5. As regards computation of compensa As re it was pensation qua deceased-Jyoti, it was contended that that the learned Tribunal erred in to be red in assessing her income to be Rs.6500/- per m per month, despite clear evidence th ching nce that she was imparting stitching training and earn d earning Rs.15,000/- per month. It is bunal . It is urged that the learned Tribunal erred in treating eating her as an unskilled labourer a ettled urer and also overlooked the settled legal position tha ion that in the case of the death of a ho wards of a housewife, no deduction towards personal expense xpenses is to be applied, as she contr ces to contributes multifaceted services to the family. It is f . It is further submitted that the Tribun tiplier ibunal wrongly applied a multiplier of 17, whereas th reas the deceased was 22 years old an wn in old and, as per the law laid down in Sarla Verma (su (supra), the appropriate multiplier 25 is ltiplier for the age group of 21-25 is 18. The learned arned Tribunal also failed to award a love ard any compensation towards love and affection, los on, loss of estate, or transportation of t on of the dead body. 6. To rebut the argument of learned c To re with rned counsel for the appellant with regard to attribut ttribution of contributory negligence, g for gence, learned counsel appearing for the cross-objecto bjectors/claimants submitted that driv le did at driver of the offending vehicle did not step into the to the witness box, who was the be ut the the best person to depose about the alleged contribut ntributory negligence of the deceased using eased in driving his car and causing PANKAJ KUMAR 2025.11.21 15:12 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh XOBJC-278-CII FAO-3180-2016 2016(O&M) CII-2016 (O&M) & -6- the accident, thus t, thus, no liability can be fastened upo gard, upon the deceased. In this regard, he placed relianc reliance upon the judgment passed b f this ssed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in FAO N AO No.6400 of 2023 titled as Unit any United India Insurance Company Limited Vs. Poon Poonam Devi and others and other c 2024. other connected cases on 04.11.2024. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the I hav d the for the parties and have perused the paper book as we as well as case laws cited with their a their able assistance. 8. As regards the argument raised by lea As re llant- by learned counsel for the appellant insurance comp company with regard to attributio gence ribution of contributory negligence towards the dece e deceased namely Kulwinder, this Co it and his Court does not find any merit and reject the same. . Admittedly, in the present case, ehicle t case, driver of the offending vehicle namely Hans Ra ns Raj did not step into the witness ctum itness box to corroborate the factum that the deceased ceased was also negligent in driving e due driving his car and did not take due caution to avoid avoid the accident. Rather, the testim , who testimony of CW2 Sohan Singh, who received injuries juries in the accident, has gone unrebu llant- unrebutted on record. The appellant insurance compa company has failed to lead any ev utory any evidence to prove contributory negligence of dec of deceased-Kulwinder Singh. 9. As regards the issue of quantum, th As r unsel um, the argument of learned counsel for the appellant ellant-insurance company that the pa led to the parents-in-law are not entitled to compensation on ion on account of death of daughter- s per -in-law is also untenable. As per sub-section 1 of 1 of Section 15 of the Hindu Succes rty of uccession Act, 1956, the property of a female Hindu indu dying intestate shall devolve ac out in lve according to the rules set out in Section 16 viz; f viz; firstly upon the sons and daugh en of daughters (including the children of any pre-deceased ceased son or daughter) and the husban heirs husband and secondly, upon the heirs of the husband. I and. In the present case, the husband in the sband of the deceased also died in the same accident an ent and there was no child, thus, the s, the parents-in-law, being the heir heirs PANKAJ KUMAR 2025.11.21 15:12 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh XOBJC-278-CII FAO-3180-2016 2016(O&M) CII-2016 (O&M) & -7- of husband are entitled to claim compensation. T been The aforesaid view has also been fortified by a Coordinate Bench of this Cour nce Court in United India Insurance Company Ltd. V td. Vs. Parlad Rai and others 2010 ( 10 (4) RCR (Civil) 153. 10. Now on the issue of quantum of com Now of the of compensation, this Court is of the opinion that the at the learned Tribunal has rightly ased- taken incomes of the deceased Kulwinder Singh Singh and Jyoti as Rs.6500/- per mo w the er month each. Keeping in view the formula laid dow id down by the Hon’ble Supreme Co TC me Court in Sarla Verma Vs. DTC (2009) 6 SCC 12 C 121 and National Insurance Co. 17) Co. Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi (2017) 16 SCC 680, if f if future prospectus of 40% is add ion of is added in the income, deduction of 1/3rd is made tow ade towards personal expenses, multi ss of , multiplier of 18 is applied, loss of dependency in bo y in both cases would come to Rs.13,1 nts of 13,10,472/- each. If components of loss of consortiu sortium, loss of estate and funeral exp reon, ral expenses are to be added thereon, in terms of Pran Pranay Sethi’s case (supra), the amo death he amount of compensation for death of deceased-Ku Kulwinder Singh would be R ,472/- be Rs.14,42,472/- (Rs.13,10,472/ +Rs.18,000/- eac each for loss of estate and funer for funeral expenses+Rs.48,000/-x2 for loss of love an ove and affection) and for death death of deceased-Jyoti would be ld be Rs.14,90,472/- (Rs.13,10,472/- + Rs.18,000/- eac neral each for loss of estate and funeral expenses+Rs.48, Rs.48,000/-x3 for loss of love and affe d affection). 11. The amount over and above as aw The bunal as awarded by the learned Tribunal shall also attract attract interest @9% per annum from e date from the date of petition till the date of realization an ion and the same shall be distributed in ibuted equally amongst claimants in both the cases. 12. In view of the aforesaid facts and ci In vie ed by and circumstances, awards passed by the learned Trib d Tribunal in both cases are partl nt of partly modified to the extent of PANKAJ KUMAR 2025.11.21 15:12 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh XOBJC-278-CII FAO-3180-2016 2016(O&M) CII-2016 (O&M) & -8- computation of of compensation. Resultantly, a rance tly, appeals filed by the insurance company are dism re dismissed and the cross-objections a tions are allowed in above terms. 13. Misc. Application(s) pending, if any, Misc.
Decision
if any, also stand disposed of. (AMAR MARINDER SINGH GREWAL) JUDGE November 19, 20 Pankaj* , 2025 Whether speaking/reaso Whether reportable g/reasoned : : Yes/No Yes/No PANKAJ KUMAR 2025.11.21 15:12 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh