IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 22.01.2026 Sunita and another ...Appellant(s)

Vs.

Kapil and others ...Respondent(s)

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

Mr. Arman Goyal, Advocate for respondent No.2.

Mr. Punit Jain, Advocate for respondent No.3-Insurance Co.

***

NIDHI GUPTA, J.

The present appeal has been filed by the claimants seeking enhancement of compensation of Rs.14,58,000/- granted by the learned MACT, Sonipat vide Award dated 24.07.2023 passed in MACP Case No. 120 dated 11.03.2022 filed under Section 166 of the Act. The 5 claimants are the parents; 29-year-old brother; and grandparents of the deceased Ankit Lamba, who was 27 years old at the time of accident.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the learned Tribunal on the basis of pleadings and evidence adduced before it concluded that the deceased- Ankit Lamba had died due to the injuries suffered by him a motor vehicular accident that took place on 19.01.2022 due to the rash and negligent driving of a Truck bearing registration No.46 E-1874 (hereinafter referred to as “the offending vehicle”) being driven by respondent No.1; owned by respondent No.2; and insured by respondent No.3. The above said compensation was awarded alongwith interest @ 7% per annum to be paid by respondents No.1 to 3 jointly and severally. However, the learned Tribunal had also held the deceased liable for contributory negligence to the extent of 25% for causing the accident in question.

3. Ld. counsel for the appellants submits that the learned Tribunal was in patent error in holding deceased liable for contributory negligence to the extent of 25% as it is the clear and categoric finding of fact in the impugned Award that Truck was parked in the middle of the road. This also proved from the site plan. Moreover, accident had taken place on 19.01.2022 at about midnight. It is submitted that in view of all the above factors, the deceased could not have been held liable for 25% contributory negligence.

4. It is further submitted that as per PW2 Aman, who filed affidavit Ex. PW2/A in which he deposed that he was informed by some passers-by about the accident and when he reached there, the passers-by disclosed the name of driver of offending vehicle as Kapil. He further disclosed that respondent No.1 had parked his truck in the middle of the road without any barricade or any indicator etc. and due to this, car of deceased had struck in the offending vehicle from back side. Therefore, accident had taken place due to sole negligence on the part of respondent no.1, who had parked the vehicle without any indicator or barricade.

5. It is submitted that in the case of Manjit Kaur and others Versus Jagtar Singh and others (FAO No. 569 of 2006 (O&M), this Court held that “where during night time moving traffic on road requires some indicators, lights or signal to notice a vehicle parked in middle of road, "The finding of the Tribunal holding drivers of both the vehicles equally liable for accident are set aside and it is held that the accident was caused due to sole negligence of driver of the offending vehicle.”. It is submitted that therefore, the deceased could not have been held liable for contributory negligence.

6. As regards quantum of compensation, learned counsel submits that Tribunal had dismissed the claim petition qua the claimants No. 3, 4 and 5, who are the 29-year-old brother; and grandparents of the deceased. It is submitted that however claimants No.1 and 2 being parents of the deceased, were entitled to consortium, which has not been granted to them. It is accordingly prayed that the present appeal be allowed.

7. Per contra, learned counsel for respondents No. 2 and 3 opposes submissions made on behalf of the appellants and submits that the impugned Award suffers from no infirmity as the compensation awarded to the appellants is just and fair.

8. Learned counsel for respondent No.3 also points out that agai