277 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision : 28.11.2025 Geeta and Others ... Appellants Versus Tekram and Another ... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ALKA SARIN Present : Mr. R.K. Choudhary, Advocate for the appellants.

Mr. D.K. Prajapati, Advocate for respondent No.2.

ALKA SARIN, J. (Oral)

1. The present appeal has been preferred by the claimant-appellants aggrieved by the quantum of compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Palwal (hereinafter referred to as ‘Tribunal’) vide the impugned award dated 03.10.2023 on account of death of Azad in a motor vehicle accident which occurred on 31.12.2019.

2. Since the factum of the accident is not in dispute, the facts are not being adverted to for the sake of brevity.

3. The Tribunal held the deceased to have contributed in the accident to the extent of 25% and awarded the following compensation :

Sr.

Heads Compensation Awarded No.

1 Monthly Income ₹9,025/-

2 Future Prospects -

₹12,635/- [₹9,025 + ₹3,610]

40%

3 Annual income ₹1,51,620/- [₹12,635 x 12]

4 Multiplier - 15 ₹22,74,300/- [₹1,51,620 x 15]

5 Deduction - 1/4th ₹17,05,725/- [₹22,74,300 - ₹5,68,575]

6 Loss of estate, loss ₹70,000/-

of consortium, funeral expenses Total compensation ₹17,75,725/- Contributory ₹4,43,931.25 negligence @ 25%

Compensation ₹13,31,793.75 (rounded off to payable ₹13,31,795/-)

Interest 6%

4. Learned counsel for the claimant-appellants would contend that there was no plea raised by the Insurance Company or by driver and owner of the offending vehicle regarding contributory negligence. Without there being any plea and without there being any issue regarding the same having been framed by the Tribunal, a finding was returned by the Tribunal qua contributory negligence. The Tribunal held that the deceased had contributed in causing the accident to the extent of 25% on the ground that he was not wearing a helmet and that it was a head on collision, though it was held in para 18 of the award that there was no evidence on the record whether the deceased was wearing a helmet or not. It is further the contention of learned counsel for the claimant-appellants that though he does not challenge the income, deduction, multiplier and the future prospects as applied by the Tribunal, however, it is contended that the compensation awarded under the conventional heads as well as under the head ‘loss of consortium’ is not in consonance with the law laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors. [(2017) 16 SCC 680], Magma General Insurance Company Limited vs. Nanu Ram alias Chuhru Ram & Ors. [(2018) 18 SCC 130] and N. Jayasree & Ors.

vs. Cholamandalam M.S General Insurance Company Ltd. [2021(4)

RCR (Civil) 642]

5. Per contra learned counsel for respondent No.2-Insurance Company would contend that it was a case where the deceased was not wearing a helmet and therefore the finding qua contributory negligence cannot be faulted with. It is further the contention that sufficient amount has already been awarded as compensation in the present case and that there is no scope of any enhancement.

6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties.

7. In the present case, in para 18 of the award, the Tribunal has specifically returned a finding that there was no evidence on the record whether the deceased was wearing a helmet or not. On the basis of nature of injuries having been suffered by the deceased it was held that there was direct negligence on the part of the deceased as he had himself violated the traffic rules and it was a head on collision. The Tribunal in para 24 of the award returned a finding that it was a case of contributory negligence on the part of the deceased to the extent of 25%. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of M. Nithya & Ors. Vs. SBI General Insurance Company Limited [SLP(Civil)

Nos.833-834 of 2023 decided on 03.01.2025] held as under :

“7. It is pertinent to observe that the Tribunal noted that the Insurance Company i