IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

214 FAO-1522-2009(O&M)

Date of decision: 26.02.2026 Phoolpat Kumari @ Pushpa & Others ...Appellant(s)

Vs.

Subhash & Others ...Respondent(s)

***

CORAM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA Present:- Mr. Anil Ghanghas, Advocate for the appellants.

Dr. Anjali Bansal, Advocate Mr. D.R. Bansal, Advocate for the respondent No.3.

***

NIDHI GUPTA, J.

Present appeal has been filed by the claimants seeking enhancement of compensation of Rs.6,06,936/- awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bhiwani (hereinafter ‘the learned Tribunal’) vide Award dated 13.05.2008 passed in Claim Petition No.114 dated 11.09.2004 filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act (hereinafter “the Act”). The 4 claimants are the 40-year-old widow, 15-year-old daughter, 9-year- old son, and 8-year-old son of deceased Hari Pal, who was 49 years old at the time of accident.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the ld. Tribunal on the basis of pleadings and oral & documentary evidence adduced by the parties, concluded that deceased Hari Pal had died due to the injuries suffered by him in a motor vehicular accident that took place on the intervening night of 26/27.04.2004 due to the rash and negligent driving of Ford Ikon bearing registration No.HR-16E-0018 (hereinafter “the offending vehicle”) being driven by respondent No.1, owned by respondent No.2 and insured by respondent No.3. The said compensation has been awarded along with interest @ 7% per annum. Respondent No.2/owner of the offending vehicle was held liable for payment of compensation. Learned Tribunal had further held that “the accident in question took place due to contributory negligence on the part of the car driver, it is held that the claimants would be entitled to fifty percent of the recoverable amount.”.

3. Brief facts of the case as pleaded by the appellants and as mentioned in Para 1 of the impugned Award are as under: -

“By way of the petition in hand instituted under section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act on 11.9.04 the petitioners claim compensation to the tune of Rs.50 lakhs with the averments that on the night intervening 26/27.4.04 Hari Pal, since deceased, aged 49 years old, was travelling along with his nephew Pawan Kumar in a Ford Ikon car bearing registration No. HR-16-E-0018 driven by the respondent no.1 in a rash and negligent manner on account whereof it struck against a 'peter rehra' in the area of Gobindpura resulting in injuries to the above named Haripal and Pawan out of whom Haripal succumbed to injuries thus received. An FIR No.326 under section 279,337 and 304-A IPC statedly stands registered at PS Sadar Bhiwani on 20.8.04 qua the said accident dated 26/27.4.04. It is claimed that the deceased was employed as an Assistant Manager in the Haryana State Coop. Apex Bank Limited, Chandigarh from which avocation he used to draw Rs. 18534/-as salary, besides earning approximately Rs. 150000/- per year from agricultural activities.”

4. It is inter alia submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that the learned Tribunal was in patent error in holding the claimants liable to contributory negligence of 50% as it failed to appreciate that the appellants had clearly pleaded and proved that at the time of accident, the offending car was being driven by Subhash, and not by Pawan. It is submitted that Pawan had duly appeared before the Tribunal as PW2 and proved the case of the appellants. However, the Id. Tribunal erred in discarding the statement of PW2, who was the sole eyewitness to the occurrence and duly proved the negligence of respondent no.1. PW2 was also having the driving license at the time of accident and had the accident been caused due to his negligent driving, they need not to implead the respondent no.1. The Ld. Tribunal has erred in misreading of pleading and erred in misinterpretation of the evidence which do not exist in the facts and circumstances of the case. 5. It is submitted that the conclusion of the learned Tribunal