231 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision : 21.01.2026 Shri Ram General Insurance Company Ltd. ... Appellant(s)

Versus Maya Devi & Ors ... Respondent(s)

2. FAO-9476-2014 (O&M)

Mangat Ram ... Appellant(s)

Versus Shri Ram General Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors ... Respondent(s)

3. FAO-2093-2016 (O&M)

Maya Devi & Ors. ... Appellant(s)

Versus Renu & Ors ... Respondent(s)

CORAM : HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ALKA SARIN Present : Mr. Rajbir Singh, Advocate for the appellant in FAO-9118-2014, for respondent No.1 in FAO-9476-2014 and for respondent No.3 in FAO-2093-2016.

Mr. Robin Lohan, Advocate for respondent Nos.1 to 5 in FAO-9118-2014, for respondent Nos.2 to 6 in FAO-9476-2014 and for the appellants in FAO-2093-2016.

Ms. Bhumika Khatri, Advocate for Mr. R.D. Yadav, Advocate for respondent No.7 in FAO-9118-2014, for the appellant in FAO-9476-2014 and for respondent No.2 in FAO-2093-2016.

ALKA SARIN, J. (Oral)

1. The present order shall dispose off the three above-captioned appeals. FAO-9118-2014 has been filed by the Insurance Company and FAO- 2093-2016 has been filed by the claimants, both aggrieved by the quantum of compensation awarded vide the impugned award dated 08.07.2014 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Rewari (hereinafter referred to as ‘Tribunal’). FAO-9476-2014 has been filed by the owner of the offending vehicle challenging the recovery rights given to the Insurance Company. The parties are being referred to as the Insurance Company, owner of the offending vehicle and the claimants for the sake of clarity.

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

3. In the present case, the Tribunal vide the impugned award while granting recovery rights to the Insurance Company had awarded the following compensation :

4. Learned counsel for the owner of the offending vehicle would contend that the offending vehicle in the present case was a three-wheeler auto bearing registration No.HR-47-B-0054 and the unladen weight of which was, admittedly, below 7500 kgs and as such the licence of Light Motor Vehicle (LMV) held by the driver would be considered as a valid licence for driving the said vehicle as well. In support of her contentions, she has relied upon a judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Mukund Dewangan Vs. Oriental Insurance Company Limited [2017 (4) RCR (Civil) 111] Learned counsel would further contend that since the unladen weight of the offending vehicle was 410 kgs as per its registration certificate, hence, the finding of the Tribunal exonerating the Insurance Company is erroneous.

5. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company would contend that a licence of a Light Motor Vehicle (LMV) would not be valid for driving a transport vehicle and that the licence of the driver in the present case did not bear any endorsement authorizing him to drive the said offending vehicle, hence, recovery rights have rightly been given by the Tribunal. Learned counsel would further contend that the age of the deceased was 43 years of age at the time of the accident, hence, an addition of 25% towards future prospects ought to have been made instead of 30%. In support of his contention, he has relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors. [(2017) 16 SCC 680]

6. Learned counsel for the claimants would contend that he does not challenge the income, future prospects and multiplier as applied by the Tribunal. However, he states that a deduction of 1/3^rd has wrongly been applied by the Tribunal inasmuch as in the present case there are five claimants being widow, two children and parents of the deceased and, hence, a deduction of 1/4^th ought to have been applied. It is further the contention of the learned counsel that the compensation awarded under the conventional heads as well as under the head ‘loss of consortium’ is not in accordance with the law laid down by th