IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

236 FAO No.517 of 2003 (O&M)

Date of Decision:21.01.2026 Shaila Mittal and others ...Appellants(cid:1)

Versus State of Haryana and others ... Respondents

2.(cid:1) FAO-1448-2003 (O&M) (cid:1)

National Insurance Company Ltd. ...Appellant(cid:1)

Versus Smt. Shaila Mittal and others ... Respondents(cid:1) CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMARINDER SINGH GREWAL Present: Mr. Sushil Jain, Advocate for the appellant in FAO No.517 of 2003 and for respondents No.1 to 3 in FAO No.1448 of 2003.

Mr. Deepak Suri, Advocate Mr. Brij Bhushan Sharma, Advocate for the appellant in FAO No.1448 of 2003 and for respondent No.4 in FAO No.517 of 2003.

Mr. Ajit Kumar Sharma, DAG, Haryana for respondents No.1 and 2 in FAO No.517 of 2003 and for respondents No.4 and 5 in FAO No.1448 of 2003.

None for respondent No.3 in FAO No.517 of 2003 and for respondent No.6 in FAO No.1448 of 2003.(cid:1)

****

AMARINDER SINGH GREWAL, J. (ORAL)

1. This order shall dispose of two appeals bearing FAO Nos.517 and 1448 of 2003. The former has been filed by the claimants seeking enhancement of compensation and the latter has been preferred by the insurance company challenging the impugned award dated 28.10.2002 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ambala (hereinafter referred to as the learned Tribunal) whereby the claim petition preferred by respondents No.1 to 3-claimants has been allowed while granting a compensation of Rs.20,48,809/- along with interest @9% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till the date of realization on account of death of husband of respondent No.1, who died in a motor vehicular accident that took place on 16.09.2000 and the said amount was directed to be paid by the respondents before it jointly and severally on the ground that the driver of the bus bearing No.HR-39/4949 (hereinafter referred to as the offending vehicle) was not holding a valid driving licence at the time of alleged accident and therefore, the appellant-insurance company is entitled to recover the same from the driver and owner of the offending vehicle.

2. Learned counsel for the appellant-claimants in FAO No.517 of 2003 and for respondents No.1 to 3 in FAO No.1448-2003 submits that while awarding the compensation, the learned Tribunal took the income of the deceased as Rs.17,477/- per month whereas the gross income of the deceased was Rs.19,477/-. Nothing was provided towards future prospects, loss of consortium and loss of estate in terms of the judgments passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sarla Verma Vs. DTC (2009) 6 SCC 121 and National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi (2017) 16 SCC 680. Therefore, he prays for enhancement of compensation. 3. Per contra, learned counsel for the appellant-insurance company in FAO No.1448 of 2003 and for respondent No.4 in FAO No.517 of 2003 submits that the accident took place due to negligence of the deceased, as he was travelling on the roof of the bus. In the process of getting down from the roof of the bus, he fell down on the road and received injuries, which proved fatal to him. Since the deceased was travelling on the roof of the bus, he was neither a passenger nor a third party and therefore, the claimants were not entitled to any compensation. Furthermore, the driver of the bus was not holding a valid driving licence at the time of accident as is evident from the Ex.R-4 i.e. report from the Licensing Authority, Raipur wherein it is specifically mentioned that driving licence No.B/7606 was neither issued nor renewed by the Licensing Authority, Raipur. In support of his contention, reliance is placed upon the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in United India Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Lehru and others (2003) 3 SCC 338. It is also submitted that the learned Tribunal assessed the income of the deceased on higher side and therefore, seeks modification of the award.

4. Mr. Ajit Kumar Sharma, DAG, Haryana submits that once the owner of the vehicle has take