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) 5191

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
SAHABUDDIN – Appellant
Versus
UMAR – Respondent



##PAGE1##

FAO No.1277 of 1999(O&M) 1 /

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH

(101) FAO No.1277 of 1999(O&M)

Date of decision: 25.02.2026

Sahabuddin … Appellant

Versus

Umar And Others …Respondents

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE VIRINDER AGGARWAL

Present: Mr. Uday Vij, Advocate,

Mr. Sanjay Vij, Advocate

for Appellant.

None for respondent No.1 and 2/Cross-Objectors

Mr. Pardeep Goyal, Advocate,

Ms. Ayushi Jain, Advocate

for respondent No.3.

*****

VIRINDER AGGARWAL,J. (Oral)

1. This Appeal is directed against the award dated 09.01.1999 passed by the

Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Gurgaon, whereby the learned Tribunal

awarded a compensation of ₹8,000/- along with interest at 12% per annum to

the appellant/claimant on account of injuries sustained in a motor vehicular

accident.

BACKGROUND FACTS

2. The facts leading to the present appeal, in brief, are that on 03.03.1994 at

about 8:30 p.m., the injured appellant Sahabuddin was standing on the kacha

portion of the Sohna-Palwal road near Sohna after his scooter had developed a

mechanical defect and he had parked it on the side of the road. At that time,

Truck bearing No. HYW-2985 driven by respondent No.1 (Umar) came from

the Sohna side at a very high speed, without blowing any horn, in a rash and

SAURAV PATHANIA

2026.03.06 15:27

I attest to the accuracy and

integrity of this document

##PAGE2##

FAO No.1277 of 1999(O&M) 2 /

negligent manner and violently struck the appellant as well as his scooter. As a

result of the said accident, the appellant sustained multiple serious injuries

including fracture in his left hand. The appellant was initially treated at Civil

Hospital, Sohna and was referred to Safdarjang Hospital, New Delhi, where he

remained admitted for five days. Consequently upon the accident, a claim

petition came to be filed by the injured appellant under Section 166 of the

Motor Vehicles Act before the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,

Gurgaon, seeking compensation of ₹5,00,000/- under various heads.

3. Upon a comprehensive appraisal of the oral as well as documentary

evidence adduced on record, the learned Tribunal returned a categorical finding

that the accident in question occurred on account of the rash and negligent

driving of Truck No. HYW-2985 by respondent No.1. The learned Tribunal

placed reliance upon the testimony of the injured claimant himself (PW-3),

Kuldeep (PW-1) who was examined as an eye-witness to the occurrence,

Mohammad Usman (PW-2), who proved the registration of the criminal case by

tendering copy of the FIR (Ex. P-1), and Dr. R.S. Yadav (PW-4), who proved

the medico-legal report as well as the disability certificate (Ex. PW4/A).

Further, the learned Tribunal held that respondent No.1 was driving the

offending vehicle and that the vehicle was not insured with respondent No.3 on

the date of accident as the policy had expired on 16.02.1993. Consequently,

respondents No.1 and 2 were held jointly and severally liable to pay the

compensation while respondent No.3 (Insurance Company) was absolved of

liability. While determining the quantum of compensation, the learned Tribunal

awarded a sum of ₹3,000/- on account of medical expenses, ₹4,000/- towards

pain and suffering, ₹500/- towards loss of income and ₹500/- towards

transportation, aggregating to a total sum of ₹8,000/-. The learned Tribunal

SAURAV PATHANIA

2026.03.06 15:27

I attest to the accuracy and

integrity of this document

##PAGE3##

FAO No.1277 of 1999(O&M) 3 /

further directed that the awarded amount shall carry interest at the rate of 12%

per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition within two months,

failing which interest at rate of 18% per annum.

CONTENTIONS

4. Learned counsel for the appellant argued that the compensation awarded

by the learned Tribunal is grossly inadequate and inconsistent with the settled

principles for determining just compensation. It was submitted that the learned

Tribunal failed to grant adequate amounts under essential heads such as pain

and suffering, loss of earning capacity, loss of amenities, transportation,

a

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