IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH

Date of Reserve: 14/11/2025

Date of Pronouncement:-18.12.2025

Date of Uploading:-19.12.2025

Bhim Singh ......Appellant

Vs.

Vashishth Tiwari & ors. ......Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA

Present: Mr. Digvijay, Advocate for Mr. Ashish Gupta, Advocate

for the appellant.

Mr. Atul Yadav, Advocate

for respondent Nos. 1 and 2.

Mr. Gaurav, Advocate for Mr. Sanjeev Goyal, Advocate

for respondent No. 3.

****

SUDEEPTI SHARMA J .

1. The present appeal has been preferred against the award dated 15.07.2017 filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Gurugram (Haryana) (for short, 'the Tribunal’) for enhancement of compensation granted to the appellant/claimant to the tune of Rs.20,88,000/- (i.e 60% of the awarded amount), on account of injuries suffered by him in a Motor Vehicular Accident, occurred on 06.03.2016 by holding contributory negligent and challenging the contributory negligence determined to

the ratio of 60:40.

Brief Facts

2. Brief facts of the case are that on 6.3.2016, claimant alongwith one Bijender were travelling in canter vehicle, No HR-60C-0414. At about 8.30 P.M

when the canter reached near Bilaspur Chowki, one closed body truck bearing registration No HR-550-7567 was parked on the road without Indicator. Due to the focus light of vehicles coming from the opposite side, the parked vehicle could not be seen and vehicle No.HR-60C-0414 hit into the same. As a result, of the accident, petitioner suffered grievous injuries on his person including serious injury on forehead and both legs. FIR No.86 dated 7.3.2016 was registered under Sections

279, 337 IPC in this regard.

3. Upon notice of the claim petition, respondents appeared and denied the factum of compensation.

4. From the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by the learned Tribunal :-

“1. Whether the accident dated 6.3.2016 took place due to rash and negligent driving of vehicle No.HR-55U-7567 by respondent No.1, resulting into injuries to petitioner? OPP.

2) Whether claimant is entitled to receive any compensation. If so what amount and from whom? OPP.

3) Whether respondent No.1 was not having valid and effective driving licence on the date of accident. If so its effect? OPR(3)

4) Whether there was violation of terms and conditions of insurance policy by respondents No. 1&2. If so its effect?

OPR(3)

5) Relief.”

5. After taking into consideration the pleadings and the evidence on record, learned Tribunal awarded compensation to the claimant. However, learned Tribunal held the accident as a case of contributory negligence in the ratio 60% on the offending vehicle and 40% on the other vehicle involved in the accident.

Hence, the present appeal is filed challenging contributory negligence of the appellant to the extent of 40% and also on the ground that the compensation awarded to the appellant is on the lower side.

SUBMISSIONS OF LEARNED COUNSELS FOR THE PARTIES

6. The learned counsel for the claimant-appellant contends that the compensation assessed by the learned Tribunal is on the lower side and deserves to be enhanced. He further contends that the finding of contributory negligence is misconceived, unsupported by evidence and is liable to be reversed. He, thus prays that the present appeal be allowed.

7. Per contra, learned counsel for respondents however, vehemently argues on the lines of the award. They, therefore prays for dismissal of the appeal.

8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the whole record of this case.

9. Before proceeding further, it is relevant to reproduce the relevant portion of the award, which reads as under:-

“Issues No.1 and 2:

Both these issues are inter-connected and inter-linked, therefore, these are taken up together for discussion.

10 The onus to prove these issues was upon the claimant. In order to prove these issues, Smt. Sunita Bhargava, learned counsel for the claimant has argued that claimant has