106 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 09.12.2025 Usha Rani and others ..Appellants Versus Raj Kumar and others ..Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANDEEP PANNU Present: Mr.Neeraj Khanna, Advocate for the appellants Mr. R.N.Singal, Advocate for respondent No.3-Insurance Company MANDEEP PANNU, J.

1. This is claimants’ appeal against the award dated 16.04.2003 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Panchkula (hereinafter referred to as ‘Tribunal’) with a prayer to modify the amount of compensation, which was awarded on account of death of Rajesh Kumar in a vehicular accident which took place on 22.01.2000. The Tribunal recorded a finding that accident was caused due to negligence of both deceased as well as Driver of the offending vehicle. Hence, it was held to be a case of contributory negligence and accordingly, awarded a compensation of Rs.1,22,000/- to the claimants.

2. The compensation awarded by the Tribunal is tabulated as under:-

Sr. Heads Compensation No. awarded

1. Monthly Income 2500/-

2. Annual loss of dependency 12000/-

3. Multiplier @ 17 2,04,000/-

17x 12000=2,04,000/-

4. Medical expenses, transportation, 40,000/-

funeral expenses etc.

Total Rs. 2,44,000/- Actual compensation awarded to Rs.1,22,000/-

claimants after deduction of 50% on account of contributory negligence

3. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that Tribunal has erred in recording finding of contributory negligence as accident was solely caused due to rash and negligent driving by driver (respondent no.1 herein) of the offending vehicle. He further submits that amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is highly inadequate as it has failed to grant escalation in income of deceased on account of ‘Future Prospects’, grant any amount under Heads ‘Loss of Consortium’, ‘Loss of Estate’ and also failed to apply appropriate multiplier and make appropriate deduction on account of personal expenses. He places reliance upon decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered in Hon’ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors [(2017) 16 SCC 680], Magma General Insurance Company Limited vs. Nanu Ram alias Chuhru Ram & Ors [(2018) 18 SCC 130] and Sarla Verma and others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another (2009) 6 SCC 121.

4. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.3- Insurance Company has vehemently argued that the deceased himself was negligent enough as he was travelling in a jeep while standing on the foot rest of the vehicle, thereby exposing to the danger of being injured by travelling in such a reckless manner. He further submits that sufficient amount towards compensation has already been awarded by the Tribunal and there is no scope for enhancement.

5. This Court has considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties.

6. First of all, let us examine issue of contributory negligence. As per FIR, deceased was working as Conductor on the offending vehicle i.e Jeep and on the date of accident, while travelling, deceased was standing on the foot rest of the vehicle/jeep since 8-9 passengers were sitting in the jeep and no space was left for him. It was also asserted that accident took place due to bursting of tyre as a result of which Rajesh Kumar lost his grip and had fallen on the road. Therefore, the Tribunal has rightly held that it was a case of contributory negligence since driver was negligent in not periodically examining the condition of tyres of his vehicle and at the same time, deceased was also careless enough by travelling in a jeep while standing on the foot rest of the vehicle. Hence, finding of the Tribunal with regard to contributory negligence of both deceased and driver of the offending vehicle is upheld.

7. Now, this Court proceeds to assess the amount of compensation. Since no challenge has been laid down by the learned counsel for the appellants to income assessed by the Tribunal, the same is accordingly maintained.

8. However, learn