IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Dipika Kumari and ors. ......Appellants vs.

Suresh Kumar and ors. ......Respondents Date of Reserve: 16.01.2026 Date of Pronouncement: 25.02.2026 Uploaded on:- 06.03.2026 Whether only the operative part of the judgment is pronounced? No Whether full judgment is pronounced? Yes CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA Present: Mr. Rajesh K. Sheoran, Advocate, for the appellants.

Mr. Sandeep Yadav, Advocate, for respondent No. 2.

Mr. P.H.S. Pannu, Advocate, for respondent No. 3.

****

SUDEEPTI SHARMA J .

1. The present appeal has been preferred against the award dated 11.07.2019 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jhajjar in the claim petition filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, 'the Tribunal’) for enhancement of compensation granted to the claimants to the tune of Rs.21,73,920/- (i.e half of Rs.43,47,840/- on account of contributory negligence of the deceased) along with interest @6% per annum, on account of death of Amit Kumar in a Motor Vehicular Accident, occurred on 15.10.2017 as well as making appellant liable for contributory negligence.

2. Brief facts of the case are that on 15.10.2017, after giving greetings to his sister Nitu at Village Uhlana (Gohana) on Diwali festival, Amit Kumar (since deceased) was returning to his home in his Swift Car No.HR-63C-7721 which was being driven by him. At about 9.30 pm, when he reached near Bus Stop of Village Rudiawas, he met with an accident due to the rash and negligent driving of the Truck bearing registration No. HR-19E-4095 (hereinafter called as the offending Truck) which came from the opposite side. Some unknown person informed the petitioners about the accident in question and then, Sutar Singh, the brother of petitioner No.4 Dharambir alongwith other family members went to the spot and found the car of the deceased as well as the offending Truck in damaged condition and thereafter, they reached General Hospital, Jhajjar where they came to know that Amit Kumar had succumbed to the injuries suffered by him in the accident. Accordingly, Sutar Singh got lodged FIR No.273 dated 16.10.2017 under Sections

279 and 304-A of IPC of Police Station, Salhawas.

3. Upon notice of the claim petition, respondents appeared and filed their separate written replies denying the factum of the accident/compensation.

4. From the pleadings of the parties, the learned Tribunal framed the following issues:-

“1. Whether the accident, resulting into the death of Amit Kumar son of Dharambir, had taken place on 15.10.2017 at about 9.30 pm near the bus-stand of Village Rudiawas, District Jhajjar due to rash and negligent driving of Truck bearing registration No.HR-19E-

4095 by respondent No. 1, as alleged? OPP.

2. If Issue No.1 is proved in affirmative, whether the petitioners are entitled to compensation, if so, to what amount and from whom?

OPP.

3. Whether the petition is not maintainable in the present form.OPR.

4. Whether respondent no.1 was not holding a valid and effective driving license on the date of alleged accident, if so, its effect?

OPR-3.

5. Whether respondent no.2 had contravened the terms and conditions of insurance policy, if so, its effect? OPR-3.

6. Relief.”

5. After taking into consideration the pleadings and the evidence on record, the learned Tribunal has awarded compensation to the claimants/appellants. However, 50% of the compensation was awarded to the appellants/claimants on account of contributory negligence of the deceased. Hence the present appeal.

SUBMISSIONS OF LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES

6. The learned counsel for the claimants-appellants contends that the amount assessed by the learned Tribunal is on the lower side and deserves to be enhanced. He further contends that the learned Tribunal has erred in law in holding accident occurred as a result of contributory negligence of the deceased (50% of the driver of the offending vehicle and 50% of deceased-Amit Kumar). Therefore, he prays that