SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(P&H) 1006

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
RAJINDER SINGH – Appellant
Versus
IQBAL SINGH – Respondent



##PAGE1##

FAO No. 3185 of 2001

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

FAO No. 3185 of 2001(O&M)

Date of decision: 29.01.2026

Rajinder Singh & Ors.

Appellants

Versus

Iqbal Singh & Ors.

…Respondents

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA

Present:- Mr. A.S. Kalsy, Advocate

For the appellants.

Mr. Sandeep Saini, Advocate

For respondent No.3 National Insurance Company Ltd.

***

DEEPAK GUPTA, J.

The present appeal has been preferred by the claimants assailing the

award dated 22.05.2001 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,

Patiala, limited to the question of inadequacy of compensation.

2. The facts are not in dispute. Surinder Pal Singh, aged about 22 years

and unmarried, lost his life in a motor vehicular accident, which occurred on

02.07.1998 due to rash and negligent driving of truck bearing registration No.

PB-11-H-7605. The mother of the deceased had predeceased him. A claim

petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 was filed by his

father Rajinder Singh, brother, widowed sister-in-law (Bhabhi) and minor

nephews, asserting themselves to be legal representatives and dependents of

the deceased.

3. The learned Tribunal recorded a finding that there was no cogent

evidence regarding the income of the deceased. It further held that the brother,

sister-in-law and minor nephews could not be treated as dependents and that

no evidence of dependency was led by them. On that premise, the Tribunal

confined the compensation to a sum of ₹50,000/- under no-fault liability,

Page N: 1 of 4

1 of 4

::: Downloaded on - 03-02-2026 20:07:05 :::

##PAGE2##

FAO No. 3185 of 2001

payable jointly and severally by the driver, owner and insurer of the offending

vehicle.

4. Learned counsel for the appellants has assailed the award on the

ground that the learned Tribunal fell into a serious error in law by restricting

compensation to no-fault liability merely on the ground that dependency was

not proved. It is contended that under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act,

the right to claim compensation vests in the “legal representatives” of the

deceased and not merely in dependents. Reliance has been placed on the

judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Limited

v. Birender & Ors. 2020 AIR (SC) 434 to submit that even non-dependent legal

representatives are entitled to maintain a claim petition and seek compensation

as per law.

5. Learned counsel further submits that even assuming that the

brother, sister-in-law and nephews may not qualify as dependents, the father of

the deceased, namely Rajinder Singh, unquestionably falls within the expression

“legal representative” and is entitled to compensation determined under

Section 166 of the Act and not confined to no-fault liability.

6. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company could not dispute the

legal position that the father of the deceased is a legal representative within the

meaning of Section 166 of the Act and is entitled to compensation to be

computed in accordance with settled principles.

7. In view of the above, this Court holds that appellant Rajinder Singh,

father of the deceased, is entitled to compensation as a legal representative of

the deceased Surinder Pal Singh. The approach adopted by the Tribunal in

restricting compensation to no-fault liability is legally unsustainable.

8. Coming to the determination of quantum, the deceased was

admittedly 22 years of age and unmarried. The educational qualifications of the

deceased stand established on record. He had passed B.A. (Hons.) in Economics

from Punjabi University, Patiala and had also cleared Master of Journalism and

Mass Communication (Part-I), with Part-II remaining. The income was pleaded to

Page N: 2 of 4

2 of 4

::: Downloaded on - 03-02-2026 20:07:05 :::

##PAGE3##

FAO No. 3185 of 2001

be ₹4,000/- per month, however, no documentary evidence was produced to

substantiate the same.

9. PW-5 Gurinder Pal Singh deposed that the deceased worked as an

Insurance Agent under him and earned commission of about ₹1,500/- over a

period of 7-8 months. In

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top