##PAGE1##

227

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH

FAO-4381-2017 (O&M)

Date of Decision : 28.01.2026

RAJ RANI .... Appellant

VERSUS

SUKHBIR AND ANR .... Respondents

CORAM : HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE ALKA SARIN

Present : Mr. Shivam Chaudhary, Advocate for the appellant.

Mr. Sukhdev Singh, Advocate for

Mr. Vikram Singh, Advocate for respondent No.1.

Mr. Vipul Sharma, Advocate for

Mr. Paul S. Saini, Advocate for respondent No.2.

ALKA SARIN, J. (ORAL)

CM-13402-CII-2017

1. This is an application for condonation of delay of 684 days in

filing the appeal.

2. For the reasons stated in the application, the same is allowed and

the delay of 684 days in filing the appeal is condoned. However, the claimant-

appellant shall not be entitled to any interest for the period of delay in filing

the appeal.

FAO-4381-2017

3. The present appeal has been preferred by the claimant-appellant

aggrieved by the quantum of compensation awarded by the Motor Accident

Claims Tribunal, Kaithal (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Tribunal’) vide award

AMAN JAIN

2026.01.29 12:35

I attest to the accuracy and

integrity of this

order/judgment

FAO-4381-2017 (O&M) -2-

dated 23.02.2015. The claim petition was filed by the claimant-appellant on

account of injuries received by her in the motor vehicular accident. Both the

claimant-appellant and the minor child were pillion riders on the motorcycle

bearing registration No.HR-05J-0990.

4. Since the factum of the accident is not in dispute, the facts, as

recorded in the impugned award passed by the Tribunal, are not being

adverted to herein for the sake of brevity.

5. The Tribunal in the present case had awarded the following

compensation :

Sr. No. Heads Compensation Awarded

1. Compensation for pain and ₹15,000

suffering

Less 10% on account of [₹15,000 – ₹1,500] = ₹13,500

contributory negligence (rounded off to ₹14,000)

Interest @ 9% per annum

6. Learned counsel for the claimant-appellant would contend that

the amount awarded by the Tribunal qua the injuries received by the claimant-

appellant is on the lower side. Learned counsel would further contend that it

has been held to be a case of contributory negligence to the extent of 10% on

the ground that the deceased was triple riding on the motorcycle. Learned

counsel would contend that at best it can be treated as a case of a traffic

violation. It is further the contention of the learned counsel that the offending

vehicle had hit the motorcycle from behind and there was no contribution on

the part of any of the riders in the accident. It is further contended that no issue

was framed by the Tribunal regarding contributory negligence, yet negligence

had been attributed to the deceased to the extent of 10%. In support of his

AMAN JAIN

2026.01.29 12:35

I attest to the accuracy and

integrity of this

order/judgment

FAO-4381-2017 (O&M) -3-

contentions the learned counsel for the claimant-appellant has relied upon the

judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case Anjana Narayan

Kamble & Ors. vs. Branch Manager, Reliance General Insurance

Company Limited & Anr. [2023 (2) CivilLJ 727] and M. Nithya & Ors.

vs. SBI General Insurance Company Limited [SLP (Civil) Nos.833-834 of

2023 decided on 03.01.2025].

7. Per contra, the learned counsel for respondent No.2-Insurance

Company has vehemently argued in the absence of any evidence, the amount

has rightly been awarded by the Tribunal and that there is no scope of any

enhancement.

8. Heard.

9. In the present case the Tribunal has held it to be a case of

contributory negligence to the extent of 10% on the ground that it was a case

of triple riding. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Anjana Narayan

Kamble (supra) has held as under :

“6. The Learned Counsel for the Appellant relied upon the

judgement of this Court in Mohammed Siddique & Anr. v.

National Insurance Company Limited & Others reported

in (2020) 3 SCC 57, wherein this Court held that the

deceased was negligent as 3 persons on a motorcycle

could have added to the imbalance. It was held that motor-

cyclist may be violating th