272 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision : 24.02.2026 Manpreet ... Appellant Versus Sonu Panchal and Others ... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ALKA SARIN Present : Mr. Maneet Kaushik, Advocate for Mr. Ashit Malik, Advocate for the appellant.

Mr. Rahul Pathania, Advocate for respondent No.3.

ALKA SARIN, J. (Oral)

1. Present appeal has been preferred by the claimant-appellant aggrieved by the quantum of compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kaithal (hereinafter referred to as ‘Tribunal’) vide the impugned award dated 07.12.2018 on account of death of Monika (minor child) (hereinafter referred to as the ‘deceased’) in a motor vehicle accident which occurred on 23.04.2017.

2. The brief facts relevant to the present lis are that on 23.04.2017 the deceased was going from Cheeka towards village Tatiana on motorcycle bearing registration No.HR-09C-9817, which was being driven by Satpal and one Laxmi Devi was also a pillion rider. Satpal was riding the motorcycle at a moderate speed and on the correct side of the road. When they reached near Kamboj Filling Station, a car bearing registration No.HR-12Y-9547, which was being driven by respondent No.1 herein in a rash and negligent manner and at a high speed, hit the motorcycle by coming on the right side of the road. As a result of the accident, all the occupants of the motorcycle fell on the road and received multiple serious injuries. They were taken to CHC Guhla where the deceased was declared ‘dead’ whereas Satpal and Laxmi were referred to Rajindra Hospital, Patiala. FIR No.69 dated 23.04.2017 under Sections 279, 337 and 304-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 was registered against the respondent No.1 at Police Station Cheeka, Kaithal.

3. The Tribunal held it to be a case of contributory negligence and awarded a lump sum amount of ₹2,75,000/- and by deducting 40% towards contributory negligence awarded an amount of ₹1,65,000/- alongwith interest @ 9%.

4. Learned counsel for the claimant-appellant would contend that the Tribunal wrongly held it to be a case of contributory negligence in the absence of any issue having been framed. It is further the contention that no evidence was led by the Insurance Company and even the driver of the offending vehicle did not step into the witness-box. Only on the basis of site plan (Ex.R5) of the place of accident, it has been held to be a case of contributory negligence. Learned counsel for the claimant-appellant has further contended that the site plan (Ex.R5) was not proved in accordance with law and was only tendered by the Insurance Company. It is further the contention that the Tribunal has only awarded a lump sum amount of ₹2,75,000/- towards compensation. The deceased in the present case was a minor child of 04 years, hence, her income ought to have been assessed as per the minimum wage of a skilled worker. It is further the contention of the learned counsel for the claimant-appellant that the Tribunal has also not applied any deduction, multiplier or made any addition towards loss of future prospects. Learned counsel for the claimant-appellant further states that the Tribunal has also not awarded any compensation under the conventional heads as well as under the head ‘loss of consortium’. In support of his contentions, the learned counsel for the claimant-appellant has relied upon the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of Sarla Verma & Ors. vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr. [(2009) 6 SCC 121], National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors. [(2017) 16 SCC 680], Magma General Insurance Company Limited vs. Nanu Ram alias Chuhru Ram & Ors. [(2018) 18 SCC 130] and N. Jayasree & Ors. vs. Cholamandalam M.S General Insurance Company Ltd. [2021(4) RCR (Civil) 642]

5. Per contra learned counsel for respondent No.3 would contend that it is a clear case of contributory negligence as the accident happened when the deceased, who was a rider of the motorcycle, was t