IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH JOGINDER KAUR AND OTHERS …Appellants Vs.

VARINDER SINGH AND OTHERS ..Respondents

1 The date when the judgment was reserved 19.02.2026 2 The date when the judgment is pronounced 16.03.2026 3 The date when the judgment is uploaded on the website 16.03.2026

4 Whether only operative part of the judgment is pronounced Full or whether the full judgment is pronounced

5 The delay, if any, of the pronouncement of full judgment Not and reasons thereof. applicable CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJA Present: Mr. Dheeraj Narula, Advocate for the appellants.

Mr. Vinod Gupta, Advocate for respondent No.3/Insurance Co.

****

HARKESH MANUJA, J.

1. By way of present appeal, challenge has been laid to an award dated 17.11.2023 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ferozepur (hereinafter referred to as “the Tribunal”), whereby a sum of Rs. 9,96,600/- was awarded as compensation to the appellants/claimants along with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of institution of claim petition till its actual realization on account of death of Gurnaib Singh, after holding that the deceased was contributory negligent to the extent of 50%. FACTS

2. A claim petition came to be filed before the learned Tribunal, praying for grant of compensation to the tune of Rs. 70,00,000/- (Rupees seventy lakhs only), on account of death of Gurnaib Singh in a vehicular accident which took place on 05.01.2020 while alleging rash and negligent driving of respondent No.1-driver.

3. After going through the pleadings and evaluating the evidence led by the parties, learned Tribunal arrived at a conclusion that accident in question occurred due to rash and negligent driving of truck bearing registration No. PB-03-AC-5482 by respondent No.1; however, held that deceased Gurnaib Singh was entering the main road from a link road and failed to exercise due caution as mandated under the Rules of the Road Regulation, 1989, he was also held guilty of contributory negligence to the extent of 50%.

4. Being aggrieved of the award dated 17.11.2023 passed by the learned Tribunal, the present appeal was preferred by the appellants/claimants for enhancement of compensation as well as for assailing the finding whereby the deceased was held guilty of contributory negligence to the extent of 50%. Facts are not being repeated here for the sake of brevity.

ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLANTS/CLAIMANTS.

5. Learned counsel for the appellants contended that the finding recorded by the learned Tribunal holding the deceased guilty of contributory negligence to the extent of 50% was wholly perverse, contrary to the pleadings on record and beyond the scope of the issues framed. It was argued that respondent Nos.1 and 2, namely the driver and owner of the offending vehicle, out rightly denied the occurrence of the accident and did not raise any specific plea of contributory negligence; therefore, the Tribunal could not have returned such a finding in the absence of pleadings and evidence. Learned counsel further submitted that the learned Tribunal gravely erred in assessing the income of the deceased on the basis of minimum wages applicable to an unskilled labourer, despite there being sufficient material on record to establish that the deceased was an agriculturist owning substantial agricultural land and also engaged in dairy business. Lastly, it was argued that the amount awarded under the conventional heads as well as the rate of interest granted by the Tribunal were on the lower side and deserve suitable enhancement.

ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF LEARNED COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENT No.3/INSURANCE COMPANY.

6. Per contra, learned counsel for the Insurance Company supported the Award and submitted that the deceased was entering the main road from a link road and had statutory duty to give way; thus, the finding of contributory negligence was justified. It was also submitted that no further enhancement of compensation was called for