IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH (105) Date of Decision: 19.01.2026

1. FAO No. 2027 of 1998 (O&M)

Jitender Kumar and Others … Appellants Versus New India Assurance And Others … Respondents AND

2. FAO No. 2515 of 1998 (O&M)

Surjit Kaur And Others … Appellants Versus Jitender Kumar And Others … Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE VIRINDER AGGARWAL Present: Mr. Himanshu Arora, Advocate and Mr. Vijay Sheoron, Advocate, for the appellants in FAO-2027-1998 and for respondent No.1 and 2 in FAO-2515-1998 Mr. Arvind Bansal, Advocate for appellants in FAO-2515-1998 Mr. Neeraj Khanna, Advocate Mr. Ravinder Arora, Advocate for Respondent No.1-Insurance Company in FAO-2027-1998 ****

VIRINDER AGGARWAL,J.(Oral)

1. The present judgment shall dispose of two connected First Appeals arising out of the same award dated 29.07.1998 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kaithal in Claim Petition No. 32 of 1996. The FAO No. 2515 of 1998 has been preferred by the claimants seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal and the FAO No. 2027 of 1998 has been preferred by respondents No.1 and 2 (driver and owner) challenging the finding of the learned Tribunal whereby the Insurance Company was exonerated on the ground that the driver was not holding a valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident. Since both appeals arise out of the same accident, same evidence and same award, they are being decided together by this common judgment. For the sake of brevity, the facts are taken from the FAO-2027-1998.

BACKGROUND FACTS

2. Briefly stated, the accident occurred on 08.02.1996 when deceased Om Parkash was standing outside his workplace (Octroi-post). Scooter bearing registration No. HR-08A-4001 driven by respondent No.1 in a rash and negligent manner struck the deceased, causing serious injuries. He was taken to Civil Hospital and thereafter referred to PGI, Chandigarh, where he succumbed to the injuries. The claim petition was filed by the widow, children and parents of the deceased claiming compensation on account of his death. It was pleaded that the deceased was about 40 years of age and was working as a clerk with Municipal Committee earning approximately Rs. 2170 per month along with future increments and service benefits. The respondents contested the claim petition. Negligence, quantum and validity of driving licence were disputed. The Insurance Company specifically pleaded breach of policy conditions on the ground that the driver was not holding a valid driving licence.

3. Upon appreciation of evidence, the learned Tribunal held that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of respondent No.1 and assessed compensation at Rs. 2,39,400/- with interest at rate of 12% per annum. However, the learned Tribunal exonerated the Insurance Company holding that the driver was not holding a valid driving licence and fastened liability upon respondents No.1 and 2. Aggrieved thereby, the claimants filed appeal seeking enhancement, whereas respondents No.1 and 2 filed another appeal challenging the finding regarding invalid driving licence.

CONTENTIONS

4. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the compensation determined by the learned Tribunal is manifestly inadequate and contrary to the settled principles governing the assessment of just compensation. It was contended that the learned Tribunal erred in assessing the income of the deceased at an unduly low figure, ignoring the evidence on record. Further, learned counsel argued that the multiplier applied by the learned Tribunal is erroneous and not in consonance with the age of the deceased. Learned counsel for appellants also submitted that the amounts awarded towards loss of consortium and last rites are unrealistically low and that the learned Tribunal failed to award compensation under other mandatory conventional heads. Additionally, no addition towards future prospects was made. On these grounds, it was urged that the impu