IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 10.02.2026 B.D. TRIVEDI AND ANR. ....Appellants Versus STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHVIR SINGH RATHOR Present : Mr. Anupam Bhardwaj, Advocate for the appellants.

Mr. Praveen Kumar, DAG, Haryana.

Mr. Nitin Gupta, Advocate for respondent No.5-Insurance Company. YASHVIR SINGH RATHOR. J.(Oral)

1. This appeal has been instituted against the Award dated 30.07.2001 for enhancement of compensation awarded in MACT case No.16/1997 decided by the MACT, Panchkula (for short “Tribunal”) in a petition under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 vide which a sum of Rs.53,000/- has been awarded as compensation to the claimants/appellants alongwith interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of claim petition till realization on account of death of Santosh, who was daughter of claimants No.1 and 2 in a motor vehicle accident.

2. The only issue required to be determined in the present appeal relates to the assessment of compensation. Therefore, the entire facts regarding the manner of the accident are not required to be reproduced in detail, as the Tribunal has already held under Issue No.1 that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving on the part of driver of offending truck No. PB-12-2117 and insured with respondent No.5. No appeal or cross-objections have been filed by respondents, challenging the said finding and accordingly finding on issue No.1 is not required to be interfered with.

3. From the pleadings of parties, issues were framed and relevant issues are as under:-

“1. Whether the accident dated 29.08.1996 resulting into the deaths of injuries to the several persons was caused due to rash and negligent driving of the Bus No.HR-03-7930 of the Truck No.PB-12-

2117 of it was a case of contributory negligence? OPP xxxxxxx

15. Whether the claimant B.B. Trivedi and others are entitled to any compensation on account of death of Santosh Trivedi and if so to what amount and from whom?OPP xxxxxxxx

18. Whether the offending truck was being driven by a person having no driving license at the time of alleged accident?

OPR

19. Whether the Insurance Company is not liable?OPR

20. Relief. ”

4. Thereafter, the parties led evidence in support of their case.

5. After hearing the parties and going through the material on the file, learned Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.53,000/- as compensation to the claimants, on account of death of Santosh along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of claim petition till realization.

6. Feeling aggrieved, the appeal in hand has been preferred. The material on file has been perused and parties have been heard.

7. At the very outset, it is pertinent to mention that the record of the appeal as well as the Tribunal has got burnt in a fire incident in the branch and the appeal in hand shall be decided as per facts and evidence mentioned in the award passed by the Tribunal.

8. As per the version of the claimants, the deceased, who was their daughter, was 24 years of age and was employed as a Nursery Teacher in Sukhna Public School, Sector 41, Chandigarh. One of the appellants, namely B.D. Trivedi, while appearing as PW1, has also stated so on oath. He further stated that Santosh was pursuing MA and her salary certificate Ex. P1 has also been tendered alongwith her educational certificates Ex. P4 and Ex. P5. He further deposed that deceased was also doing tuition work and earning about Rs.2,000/- per month. Petitioners also examined one of the teacher of Sukhna Public School namely Aruna Kanda as PW19, who proved the salary certificate Ex. PW19/1. Besides this, petitioners have also examined one Surinder Pal as PW3, who deposed that his two daughters were taking tuitions from the deceased and he was paying Rs.450/- as tuition fee to her.

9. The learned Tribunal after appreciating the evidence, assessed the monthly income of deceased to be Rs.1,000/- per month, which in my opinion