IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 06.02.2025 Jasbir Kaur and others ...Appellant(s)

Vs.

Nachhattar Singh and others ...Respondent(s)

CORAM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA Present:- Ms. Sukhan Rangi Sekhon, Advocate for the appellants.

Mr. Neeraj Khanna, Advocate for respondent No.3-Insurance Co.

***

NIDHI GUPTA, J.

The present appeal has been filed by the claimants seeking enhancement of compensation of Rs.50,000/- granted by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Fatehgarh Sahib (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Tribunal’) vide Award dated 01.04.2009 passed in a claim petition No. 36 dated 02.06.2006 filed under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). The 4 claimants are the Widow and 3 children of the deceased Ranjodh Singh, who was stated to have been about 50 years old at the time of accident. The above said compensation was granted under Section 140 of the Act along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of claim petition till actual payment, under the ‘no fault liability’ from the respondents jointly and severally.

2. The pleaded case of the claimants before the learned Tribunal was that on 16.03.2006 deceased Ranjodh Singh alongwith some other persons went to Karnal for purchasing seeds of paddy, on Vehicle no. PB-10- AD-9599 (hereinafter referred to as “the offending vehicle”), which was being driven by respondent no.1, Nachhattar Singh. While returning at about 5 PM, when they reached near Floating Restaurant, Sirhind then the said vehicle turned over. Ranjodh Singh died at the spot. The deceased Ranjodh Singh the only bread winner, was 50 years of age and an agriculturist.

3. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the compensation awarded to the claimants is on the lower side. The appellants had duly proven the accident by the offending vehicle and even the death of Ranjodh Singh was proven on record. As such, the compensation of at least Rs.5 lacs ought to have been awarded to the appellants.

4. Learned counsel for respondent No.3-Insurance Company opposes the prayer made on behalf of the appellants and submits that no enhancement of compensation is called for as there was no fault on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle. It is submitted that it is the admitted case of the appellants that the offending vehicle had turned turtle due to the burst of tyre. It is contended that as such, the respondents cannot be held liable for the accident.

5. Learned counsel for the appellants counters the submission made on behalf of the respondent-Insurance Company and refers to judgment of a Coordinate Bench of this Court in ‘Roshan Lal vs. Jarnail Singh’ Law Finder Doc Id # 576693, wherein it is held as follows:-

“..................A tyre burst on the road is result of poor upkeep of one of the most important parts in a four- wheeler. It shall be no defence for an owner to plead that a burst of tyre that makes the driver lose his control over the vehicle to result in an inference that there was no negligence. When a contention is taken before the Tribunal that there was a negligent driving by the driver and it is sought to be explained by the driver that he was careful in his driving and he had kept the vehicle in a state of repair, he was bound to bring before the Tribunal all the evidence of the care that he had taken for the regular upkeep of the tyres. A tyre that is properly maintained is not expected to burst or if it burst, and the driver was unable to control the steering and let it go into a ditch, it is illustrative of the principle of res ipsa loquitur. This issue is also not without precedents and governed by a large volume of case law from every High Court. In Darshan Kumari and others v. State of Punjab and others, 2007 (4) PLR 219, a bench of this court held that bursting of tyre cannot be taken as an act of God to enable the driver or the owner to escape liability. In this regard, we may refer the Motor Vehicle Law