IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH (223) Reserved on: 06.03.2026 Pronounced on: 12.03.2026 Uploaded on: 12.03.2026

1. F.A.O. No. 2068 of 2003(O&M)

Chhoti and Another ...Appellants Versus Jaswant Singh and Others ...Respondents AND

2. F.A.O. No. 2282 of 2003(O&M)

Salochna and Others ...Appellants Versus Jaswant Singh and Others ...Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE VIRINDER AGGARWAL Present: Mr. Atul Jain, Advocate for the appellant.

Mr. Ajay Singla, Advocate for the respondent no.3/Insurance Company.

VIRINDER AGGARWAL, J.

1. These two connected appeals have been preferred by the appellants under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, challenging the awards dated 15.02.2003 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Patiala. The claimants have filed the present appeals seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal and also challenging the finding of the Tribunal whereby the case was held to be one of contributory negligence to the extent of 50% each. Since both appeals arise out of the same award and arise out of the same motor vehicular accident, they are being disposed of by this common judgment.

BACKGROUND FACTS

2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that on 29.07.1999, Kaka Singh along with Sham Lal was travelling on motorcycle bearing registration No. PCX-130 from Patran towards village Duggal. Sham Lal was driving the motorcycle whereas Kaka Singh was the pillion rider. When they reached on Patran–Sangrur road near Gurudwara Duggal Khurd, a Tata Tempo 407 bearing registration No. PB-13B-1286, driven by respondent No.1 Jaswant Singh in a rash and negligent manner, came from the opposite side and struck against the motorcycle. As a result of the said accident, both Kaka Singh and Sham Lal sustained fatal injuries and died. A criminal case was also registered against the driver of the offending vehicle vide FIR No.187 dated 29.07.1999 under Sections 279, 427, 304-A IPC at Police Station Patran. The legal representatives of the deceased filed separate claim petitions under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act seeking compensation on account of the death of the deceased persons.

3. The learned Tribunal, after considering the evidence on record, came to the conclusion that the accident involved the motorcycle driven by Sham Lal and the Tata Tempo driven by respondent No.1 Jaswant Singh. However, the learned Tribunal held that the claimants had failed to conclusively establish that the accident occurred solely due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Tata Tempo. The learned Tribunal noticed that the alleged eye-witness had stated that he reached the spot after the accident and that the driver of the offending vehicle had been acquitted in the criminal case. On the said basis, the learned Tribunal held the case to be one of contributory negligence to the extent of 50% each between the driver of the Tata Tempo and the driver of the motorcycle. Consequently, the learned Tribunal assessed compensation in the claim petition relating to the death of Kaka Singh at ₹84,000, but after applying the deduction of 50% on account of contributory negligence, awarded a sum of ₹42,000 to the claimants. Similarly, in the claim petition relating to the death of Sham Lal, the learned Tribunal assessed the compensation at ₹1,68,000 and after applying the deduction of 50%, awarded a sum of ₹84,000 to the claimants along with interest.

CONTENTIONS

4. Learned counsel for the appellants has argued that the finding of the learned Tribunal regarding contributory negligence is wholly erroneous and contrary to the evidence available on record. It is submitted that the learned Tribunal wrongly relied upon the judgment of acquittal passed by the criminal court against the driver of the offending vehicle, which was neither duly proved nor exhibited in accordance with law. It is further argued that the learned Tribunal ignored the material fact that the driver of the offending vehi