272-1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision : 24.02.2026 Manpreet and Others ... Appellants 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 appellants.

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

ALKA SARIN, J. (Oral)

1. Present appeal has been preferred by the claimant-appellants 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 Satpal (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 on which Laxmi Devi and a minor child, namely, Monika were pillion riders. The deceased was riding the motorcycle at a moderate speed and on correct side of the road. When the deceased 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 of the deceased by coming on the right side of the road. As a result of the accident, the deceased alongwith Laxmi and Monika fell on the road and received multiple serious injuries. They were taken to CHC Guhla where Monika (minor child) was declared ‘dead’ whereas the deceased and Laxmi were referred to Rajindra Hospital, Patiala. However, the deceased succumbed to his injuries. 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 in the present case had awarded the following compensation holding it to be a case of contributory negligence to the extent of 40% :

Sr. No. Heads Compensation Awarded

1 Monthly Income ₹9,000/-

2 Annual Income ₹1,08,000/- [₹9,000 x 12]

3 Future Prospects - 40% ₹1,51,200/- [₹1,08,000 + ₹43,200] 4 Deduction - 1/3rd ₹1,00,800/- [₹1,51,200 - ₹50,400]

5 Multiplier - 18 ₹18,14,400/- [₹1,00,800 x 18]

6 Loss of estate ₹15,000/- 7 Funeral expenses ₹15,000/- 8 Loss of consortium ₹40,000/-

Total Compensation ₹18,84,400/ Actual compensation ₹11,30,640/

after deducting 40% towards contributory negligence Interest 9% per annum

4. Learned counsel for the claimant-appellants 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 the site plan (Ex.R5) it has been held to be a case of contributory negligence. Learned counsel for the claimant-appellants has further contended that the site plan (Ex.R5) was not proved in accordance with the law and was only tendered by the Insurance Company. It is further the contention that he does not challenge the income, deduction, multiplier and the future prospects as assessed by the Tribunal however the compensation awarded under the conventional heads as well as under the head ‘loss of consortium’ is not in accordance with the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in cases of 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 Satpal, who was the rider of the motorcycle, was trying to overtake a truck. It is further the contention that sufficient amount