IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Reserved on : 30.11.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 31.01.2026 Uploaded on : 05.02.2026 Smt. Jyoti and others ......Appellants Vs.

Ram Bhajan and others ......Respondents Whether only the operative part of the judgment is pronounced? NO Whether full judgment is pronounced? YES CORAM: HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA Present: Mr. Namit Sharma, Advocate, for the appellants.

Mr. Vijay Kumar Garg, Advocate, for respondent No.4-Insurance Company.

****

SUDEEPTI SHARMA J.

1. The present appeal has been preferred against the award dated 06.11.2013 passed in the claim petition filed under Sections 166 & 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Panipat (for short, ‘the Tribunal’) for enhancement of compensation, granted to the appellants/claimants to the tune of Rs.9,63,000/- along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum, on account of death of Rajeev in a Motor Vehicular Accident, occurred on 24.02.2012. However, the claimants-appellant were held liable to only 50% of the awarded amount on account of contributory negligence.

BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE

2. It is submitted that on 24.2.2012, at about 8.30 pm, deceased Rajeev was going to meet his sister at Village Kurar, District Panipat in a pick up bearing registration No. HR39B-7210. Rajeev was sitting at conductor side, while driver of said pick up namely Kuldeep was driving the same at moderate speed and on his left side. When they reached near Ugra Kheri Turn, Sanoli Road, Panipat, a canter bearing registration No. MH04CG-8451, driven by respondent no.1 rashly and negligently, struck the driver side of the canter with the aforesaid pick up, due to which Rajeev died at the spot. The name and address of the driver, who ran away from the spot leaving the canter there, came to know as Ram Bhajan son of Chunni Lal resident of Village Toswa, Police Station Padri District Mirzapur (UP). The deceased was taken to BSS General Hospital, Panipat, with the help of Jai Bhagwan son of Ram Kishan and Rajesh, where the doctors declared him dead and his postmortem examination was conducted on next day. Jai Bhagwan got registered a criminal case against respondent no.1, vide FIR No.209 dated 25.2.2012 under Sections 279 and 304-A IPC, at Police Station Chandni Bagh, Panipat.

3. Upon notice of the claim petition, respondents appeared and contested the claim petition by filing their separate written replies and denied the factum of the accident/compensation.

4. From the pleadings of the parties, learned Tribunal framed the following issues:-

“1. Whether the deceased Rajeev died in the motor vehicle accident due to the rash and negligent driving of respondent no.1 of the vehicle bearing registration no.MH-4CG-8451? OPP

2. Whether the claimants are entitled to be compensated by the respondents on account of death of deceased in the motor vehicle accident, if yes, how much and from whom? OPP

3. Whether the respondents no.1 and 2 have infringed the conditions of Insurance policy, if so what its effect? OPR. 4. Relief

5. In support of their pleadings, both the parties led their respective evidence.

6. After taking into consideration the pleadings and the evidence on record, the learned Tribunal awarded compensation to the claimants/appellants to the tune of Rs.9,63,000/-. However, the claimants- appellants were held liable to compensation to the tune of Rs.04,85,100/- (50% of the awarded amount) along with interest @ 7.5% per annum on account of death of Rajeev and appellant-Insurance Company was held liable to pay compensation to the extent of 50% of the awarded amount on account of contributory negligence. Hence, the present appeal.

SUBMISSIONS OF THE LEARNED COUNSELS FOR THE PARTIES 7. Learned counsel for the appellants-claimants contends that the learned Tribunal has erred in holding that the accident took place due to contributory negligence. He further contends that the compensation awarded by learned Tribunal is on lower