IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 23.01.2026 Mohinder Kaur and others … Appellants Versus Vishal Bansal and others … Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIRINDER AGGARWAL Present: Mr. Hardeep Singh, Advocate for the Appellant.

Mr. Ayushi Jain, Advocate for Mr. Pardeep Goyal, Advocate for the Respondent No. 3/Insurance Company *****

VIRINDER AGGARWAL,J. (ORAL)

1. The present appeal has been preferred by the claimants seeking enhancement of compensation and setting aside the finding of 50% contributory negligence recorded by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Rupnagar, vide award dated 08.01.2001.

BACKGROUND FACTS

2. Briefly stated, on 27.07.1998, Parveen Kumar along with Balbir Singh was travelling on a scooter. When they reached near the bus stand of village Ralla Majra, a Tata mini truck bearing registration No. HR-01A-7755,, being driven by respondent No.2 in a rash and negligent manner, at a high speed and without observing traffic norms, came from behind and violently struck the scooter bearing registration No. HYH-1384. Due to the impact, both riders fell on the road and sustained serious injuries. The injured were first taken to Civil Hospital, Rupnagar for first aid and thereafter referred to PGI, Chandigarh. Unfortunately, Parveen Kumar succumbed to the injuries while on the way to the hospital. FIR was registered at the concerned police station against the driver of the offending vehicle. The accident was stated to have occurred solely due to rash and negligent driving of the offending truck. It was pleaded that the deceased was about 24 years of age, unmarried, and was working on contract basis as a painter with a private company, earning approximately ₹5,000/- per month. He was the sole earning member of the family and was maintaining his widowed mother, minor brother and sister. Therefore, the claimants prayed for compensation of ₹10,00,000/-.

3. Upon appreciation of the evidence, the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal held that the accident had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the offending Tata mini truck. However, the learned Tribunal also held that the deceased contributed to the accident as three persons were riding on the scooter, which amounted to violation of traffic rules and imbalance of the vehicle. The learned Tribunal, on such assumption, held that the accident occurred due to composite negligence of both the deceased and the driver of the offending vehicle and assessed contributory negligence at 50% each.The learned Tribunal assessed the total loss of dependency at ₹2,11,200/-. After applying 50% deduction on account of contributory negligence, the Tribunal reduced the loss of dependency to ₹1,05,600/-. In addition thereto, the learned Tribunal awarded ₹20,000/- towards funeral expenses; and ₹25,000/- towards loss of love and affection. Thus, the total compensation awarded by the Tribunal came to ₹1,50,600/-.

CONTENTIONS

4. Learned counsel for the appellants contends that the finding of contributory negligence is based on conjectures and not supported by any cogent evidence. It is further argued 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 impugned award calls for enhancement so as to grant just, f