SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(P&H) 5172

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
(O&M) SMT. SABESH AND OTHERS – Appellant
Versus
RAJENDER SINGH AND OTHERS – Respondent



##PAGE1##

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

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

FAO-2126-2004

Date of decision: 05.03.2026

Smt. Sabesh and others ...Appellants

Versus

Rajender Singh and others ...Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA

Present: Mr. P.R. Yadav, Advocate for the appellants.

Mr. Sandeep Suri, Advocate

for respondent No.3-Insurance Company.

****

DEEPAK GUPTA, J. (ORAL)

It is an appeal filed by the claimants seeking enhancement of

the compensa2on awarded by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal.

2. The brief facts necessary for disposal of the present appeal are

that in a motor vehicular accident, which occurred on 11.06.1999,

Mahender lost his life due to the rash and negligent driving of Bus No. HR-

47-1464. The widow, two minor children and the parents of the deceased

filed a claim pe22on under the Motor Vehicles Act seeking compensa2on

from the driver, owner and insurer of the offending vehicle. Upon

apprecia2on of the pleadings and evidence on record, the learned Tribunal

vide award dated 09.06.2003 allowed the claim pe22on and awarded

compensa2on of ₹3,12,400/- along with interest, holding the driver, owner

and insurer of the offending vehicle jointly and severally liable to pay the

said amount.

3. The claimants have preferred the present appeal seeking

enhancement of the compensa2on. Learned counsel for the appellants

submits that the income of the deceased has been assessed on the lower

1 of 5

::: Downloaded on - 09-03-2026 20:31:49 :::

##PAGE2##

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

side by the Tribunal. It is argued that since there were five dependents of

the deceased, the deduc2on towards personal expenses ought to have

been one-fourth instead of the deduc2on applied by the Tribunal. It is

further contended that no addi2on towards future prospects has been

made while calcula2ng the loss of dependency and that the compensa2on

awarded under the conven2onal heads is also inadequate. Learned counsel

further submits that the deceased was working as a driver and was earning

₹2,500/- per month as salary and was also contribu2ng towards agricultural

work, thereby earning a total sum of ₹6,500/- per month. However, the

Tribunal has taken into considera2on only ₹2,100/- per month as the

income of the deceased.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the insurance company does

not seriously dispute that the compensa2on is liable to be reassessed in

accordance with 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 submiAed that the Tribunal has assessed the income of the

deceased on the basis of the evidence available on record and therefore

the same should not be substan2ally interfered with.

5. Having heard learned counsel for the par2es and aBer perusing

the record, this Court finds that the widow of the deceased, Smt. Sabesh,

appeared as a witness and deposed that her husband Mahender was about

28 years of age and was working as a driver by profession. According to her

tes2mony, he used to drive the truck belonging to Mamraj and was

receiving a salary of ₹2,500/- per month. This version is duly corroborated

2 of 5

::: Downloaded on - 09-03-2026 20:31:49 :::

##PAGE3##

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

by PW4 Mamraj, the owner of the truck. Merely because PW4 was not

maintaining any wriAen record regarding payment of salary cannot be a

ground to discard his tes2mony, par2cularl

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top