##PAGE1##

(cid:1)(cid:2)(cid:3)(cid:4)(cid:5)(cid:6)(cid:7)(cid:5)(cid:4)(cid:8)(cid:9)(cid:9)(cid:5) (cid:10)(cid:10)(cid:10)(cid:10)(cid:11)(cid:12)(cid:13)(cid:10)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

FAO-4574-2004

Date of decision: 05.03.2026

Paramjit Kaur and others ...Appellants

Versus

Kalu Singh and others ...Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA

Present: Mr. Karamjit Verma, Advocate for the appellants.

Mr. R.C. Gupta, Advocate

for respondent No.3-Insurance Company.

****

DEEPAK GUPTA, J. (ORAL)

It is an appeal filed by the claimants seeking enhancement of

the compensa3on awarded by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal.

2. The facts giving rise to the present appeal are that in a motor

vehicular accident, which occurred on 31.03.2001, Baljit Singh lost his life

due to the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle i.e. car

bearing registra3on No. PB-10-W-1117. The widow, two minor children and

the parents of the deceased ins3tuted a claim pe33on under the Motor

Vehicles Act seeking compensa3on from the driver, owner and insurer of

the offending vehicle. Upon apprecia3on of the evidence on record, the

learned Tribunal allowed the claim pe33on and awarded a sum of

₹3,00,839/- as compensa3on along with interest, holding the respondents

jointly and severally liable to pay the said amount. However, since the

driver of the offending vehicle was found not to be holding a valid driving

licence at the 3me of the accident, the Tribunal granted recovery rights to

the insurance company to recover the awarded amount from the driver and

owner a@er sa3sfying the award.

1 of 5

::: Downloaded on - 07-03-2026 14:14:04 :::

(cid:1)(cid:2)(cid:3)(cid:4)(cid:5)(cid:6)(cid:7)(cid:5)(cid:4)(cid:8)(cid:9)(cid:9)(cid:5) (cid:10)(cid:10)(cid:10)(cid:10)(cid:11)(cid:8)(cid:13)(cid:10)

3. The claimants have approached this Court seeking

enhancement of the compensa3on awarded by the Tribunal. Learned

counsel for the appellants contends that the deceased was only 26 years of

age at the 3me of the accident, yet the Tribunal failed to make any addi3on

towards future prospects while assessing the income of the deceased. It is

further argued that there were five dependents of the deceased, namely his

widow, two minor children and parents, therefore only one-fourth

deduc3on towards personal expenses ought to have been made, whereas

the Tribunal wrongly applied deduc3on of one-third. It is also submiCed

that considering the age of the deceased, mul3plier of 17 was liable to be

applied in view of the seCled principles of law, but the Tribunal adopted the

mul3plier of 16. It is further contended that inadequate compensa3on has

been awarded under the conven3onal heads.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the insurance company fairly

concedes that the compensa3on requires reassessment in the light of the

principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Na(cid:3)onal Insurance

Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi and others, 2017(4) RCR (Civil) 1009,

Sarla Verma and others v. Delhi Transport Corpora(cid:3)on and another,

(2009) 6 SCC 121 and Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram

alias Chuhru Ram and others, 2018 (4) RCR (Civil) 333. However, it is

submiCed that since the Tribunal has already granted recovery rights to the

insurance company on account of the driver not possessing a valid driving

licence, such recovery rights should remain intact.

5. Respondents No.1 and 2, namely the driver and owner of the

offending vehicle, had not contested the proceedings before the Tribunal

and were proceeded against ex parte. Therefore, in the present appeal,

no3ce to them stands dispensed with.

2 of 5

::: Downloaded on - 07-03-2026 14:14:04 :::

(cid:1)(cid:2)(cid:3)(cid:4)(cid:5)(cid:6)(cid:7)(cid:5)(cid:4)(cid:8)(cid:9)(cid:9)(cid:5) (cid:10)(cid:10)(cid:10)(cid:10)(cid:11)(cid:14)(cid:13)(cid:10)

6. The occurrence of the accident and the finding recorded by the

Tribunal that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of

car No. PB-10-W-1117 are not