IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Reserved on: 10.11.2025 Pronounced on :12.11.2025 SAKINDER KAUR AND OTHERS .....APPELLANTS VERSUS SHAM SUNDER AND OTHERS .....RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE VIRINDER AGGARWAL Present: Mr. H.K. Brinda, Advocate for Mr. Dharam Pal, Advocate for appellants.

Mr. Ajay S. Dhiman, Advocate for Mr. Vijay Lath, Advocate for respondent No.1 Mr. Lalit Garg, Advocate for respondent No.3 *****

VIRINDER AGGARWAL, J.

1. This appeal has been filed by the claimants seeking enhancement of compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ropar, vide award dated 14.02.2003 passed under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 on account of the death of Jagdish Singh in a motor accident which occurred on 26.07.2000.

BACKGROUND FACTS

2. The brief facts of the case are that on 26.07.2000 at about 3:00 p.m., Jagdish Singh, who was standing near Chungi Detori, Jawahar Market, Nangal, along with his son Mohinder Singh, was struck by a Maruti Van bearing registration No. (HR-01-F-0258), which approached from the Nangal side and was allegedly being driven by respondent No.1 at a high speed and in a rash and negligent manner. The impact dragged the deceased for a distance of approximately 50 yards, causing grievous injuries from which he succumbed while being taken to PGI, Chandigarh. The claimants thereafter instituted the present claim petition under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, seeking compensation on account of the death of Jagdish Singh.

3. The learned Tribunal, while adjudicating the claim under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, applied the structured formula prescribed in the Second Schedule and held that the accident resulting in the death of Jagdish Singh stood established from the pleadings and evidence on record. Respondents No.1 and 2 had themselves admitted the occurrence of the accident in their written statement and had not led any evidence to dispute the same, leading the learned Tribunal to conclude that the deceased had died in a motor vehicular accident involving Maruti Van No. (HR-01-F-0258) driven by respondent No.1. Since the petition was one under Section 163-A requiring computation strictly in terms of the Second Schedule, the learned Tribunal treated the deceased as an unskilled labourer in the absence of any proof of his employment, income or driving licence, and determined his age as 62 years on the basis of the DDR on record, which was lodged by deceased 2 years prior to accident in question on account of loss of his documents and he described his age as 60 years at that time. Thus, the learned tribunal applied the statutory multiplier of 5 as provided in the Second Schedule. With regard to liability, the learned Tribunal found the driving licence produced by respondent No.1 to be not genuine, thereby constituting a breach of policy conditions. Notwithstanding this breach, the learned Tribunal concluded that respondents No.1 and 2 were jointly and severally liable for the accident, but directed the Insurance Company to satisfy the award in favour of the claimants, granting it the right to recover the amount from respondent No.2, the owner of the vehicle.

₹

The learned Tribunal accordingly awarded a sum of 1,29,500/-, along with interest at rate of 9% per annum, holding respondents No.1 and 2 jointly and severally liable, but directing respondent No.3 (Insurance Company) to pay the amount to the claimants with right of recovery against the owner.

CONTENTIONS

4. The learned counsel for appellants contended that the compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal is grossly inadequate. It is urged that the learned Tribunal erred in taking the deceased’s income even though proved by evidence. Further, learned Counsel contended that the learned Tribunal erred in assessing his age as 62 years instead of 58 years as per the post-mortem report (Ex.P2). It is argued that the learned Tribunal failed to consider that the deceased was maintain