IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

225 FAO No.4184 of 2002 (O&M)

Date of Decision:04.11.2025 Om Parkash ...Appellant Versus Dharma and Ors ... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMARINDER SINGH GREWAL Present: Mr. Maneet Kaushik, Advocate for Mr. Sagar Aggarwal, Advocate, for the appellant.

None for respondents.

***

AMARINDER SINGH GREWAL, J. (ORAL)

1. The present appeal has been preferred by the appellant- superdar/owner of the insured/offending vehicle challenging the impugned award dated 16.05.2001 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Panipat (for short, ‘the learned Tribunal’), whereby while awarding compensation of Rs.1,70,000/- along with interest @ 9% per annum in favour of the claimants on account of the death of Smt. Makri Devi in a motor vehicular accident, it has granted recovery rights to respondent No.6-insurance company against him.

2. Succinctly, the facts of the case are that on 11.04.1998 at about 5:00 P.M., Smt. Makri Devi, aged about 50 to 55 years, along with her grandson- Sudesh Kumar (daughter’s son) was going to village Nangal Kheri to visit her daughter. After alighting from a bus at the bus stop of village Nangal Kheri, and while crossing the G.T. Road, a Canter bearing registration No.DL-1LB-0556 (hereinafter referred to as the offending vehicle), driven by respondent No.1/driver in a rash and negligent manner, came from the Panipat side, veered onto the kacha portion of the road and hit Smt. Makri Devi, as a result of which she sustained grievous injuries and succumbed to her injuries en route to the Civil Hospital, Panipat. FIR No.188 dated 11.04.1998 under Sections 279 and 304-A of the IPC was registered at Police Station Chandni Bagh, Panipat, against respondent No.1-driver of the offending vehicle. The claimants, being the legal representatives of the deceased, filed a claim petition seeking compensation for her untimely death. The learned Tribunal, after appreciating the evidence on record, assessed her monthly income at ₹2000/-, applied a multiplier of 10 and after deducting one-third towards personal expenses, awarded total compensation of ₹1,70,000/-, inclusive of ₹10,000/- towards funeral expenses, along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till its realisation, holding the respondents before it jointly and severally liable.

3. The learned counsel for the appellant–owner contends that the learned Tribunal erred in granting recovery rights to the insurer and in holding that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of driver of the offending vehicle. It is further argued that the compensation of ₹1,70,000/- with interest @9% per annum is excessive, as the deceased being an elderly lady of more than 55 years, was not substantially contributing to the household. It is urged that the finding regarding invalidity of the driving licence is perverse, since the driver possessed a valid and effective LMV licence at the time of the accident. In terms of Section 2(21) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, a light motor vehicle includes transport vehicle, unladen weight of which does not exceed 7500 kilograms, and hence the insurer failed to prove any breach of policy. In support of his contention, he relied upon the judgment passed by Constitution Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in M/s Bajaj Alliance General Insurance Co. Ltd.

Vs. Rambha Devi (2025) 3 SCC 95. The appellant, therefore, seeks setting aside of the impugned award by way of instant appeal.

4. There is no representation on behalf of respondent No.6-insurance company. The appeal is of the year 2002, records of which had burnt in a fire incident occurred in this Court and the papers were ordered to be reconstructed. Therefore, keeping in view the fact that the appeal is of the year 2002, this Court proceeds to dispose of the same with the assistance of learned counsel for the appellant and the records available.

5. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant