IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 09.09.2025 Shalini Devi @ Vandana and others … Appellants Versus Ramesh Kumar and others … Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKRAM AGGARWAL Present: Mr. S.S. Khurana, Advocate, for the appellants.

***

VIKRAM AGGARWAL, J. (ORAL)

Claimants are in appeal seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Rewari (hereinafter referred to as, ‘the Tribunal’) in a claim petition preferred by them under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, ‘the MV Act’) for the grant of compensation on account of the death of one Sudhir in a motor vehicular accident which took place on 21.10.2015. The appellants/claimants are the widow, minor daughter and parents of deceased Sudhir.

2. As per the claim petition, on 21.10.2015, at about 8:15 pm, Sudhir was going to his native Village Radha Ki Dhani on his motorcycle bearing registration No.HR-36K-3658. He was being followed by his uncle Krishan Kumar, and his friend Bir Singh. When Sudhir reached near Indian Public School at Basduda road, a maruti car bearing registration No.HR- 36F-1074 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the offending vehicle’) came at a very high speed from behind and struck the motorcycle of Sudhir. As a result of the impact, Sudhir fell on the road, sustained multiple grievous injuries, and unfortunately died at the spot. The driver of the offending vehicle, Ramesh Kumar (respondent No.1), fled from the spot. FIR No.259, dated 22.10.2015 was registered under Sections 279 & 304-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1906 (for short, ‘IPC’).

3. It was claimed that Sudhir was 26 years old and was employed as a driver in Astha School, Basduda. It was further asserted that he was also an agriculturist, earning an income of Rs.40,000/- per month. Accordingly, a compensation of Rs.40,00,000/- was claimed from the respondents.

4. Respondents No.1 & 2 opposed the claim petition. While denying the factum of the alleged accident, it was averred that the offending vehicle was insured with respondent No.3 (New India Assurance Company). 5. The New India Assurance Company (respondent No.3) also took its usual defences and on merits denied the factum of accident.

6. From the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed on 17.05.2016:

“1. Whether on 21.10.2015, Sudhir died in the accident in question which took place due to rash and negligent driving of offending car (Maruti 800) bearing registration no.HR-36F-1074, by respondent no.1? OPP

2. If issue no.1 is proved, whether the claimants are entitled to any compensation? If so to what amount and from whom? OPP

3. Whether respondent no.1 was not holding a valid and effective driving licence at the date of accident in question, If so to what effect? OPR

4. Relief.”

7. Parties led their respective evidence.

8. Under issue No.1, the Tribunal concluded that the accident as a result of which Sudhir had expired, had taken place on account of rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by respondent No.1.

8.1 As regards the issue of quantum of compensation, the Tribunal did not rely upon the evidence led by the claimants in support of the monthly income of the deceased, which as per them was Rs.9,800/- per month as salary for which they had produced Sunil Kumar, Clerk, Astha School Basduda (PW2), who had proved the salary certificate as Ex.P2. However, the Tribunal held that merely on the basis of a salary certificate, the income could not be assessed at Rs.9,800/- per month, for, no other record viz. appointment letter, attendance record, authority letter to depose etc. has been produced. Accordingly, the income of Sudhir was assessed as Rs.8,000/- per month.

8.2 As regards Sudhir being an agriculturist, the Tribunal held that the revenue record produced did not indicate Sudhir as owner or in possession of the land. While adding 50% of loss of future income, the Tribunal assessed compensation in the following manner: