IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 01.04.2026 Geeta and others ....Appellants V/s Sukhpal and others .…Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKRAM AGGARWAL Present: Mr. Ashutosh Bhardwaj, Advocate and Mr. Parvesh K. Saini, Advocate, for the appellants.

Mr. R.C. Kapoor, Advocate, for respondent No.3-insurance company.

***

VIKRAM AGGARWAL, J. (ORAL)

The instant appeal has been preferred by the claimants, who are the widow and parents of Om Parkash (since deceased), seeking enhancement in compensation awarded to them by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kaithal (for short “the MACT”) vide award dated 08.12.2006 passed in a claim petition instituted under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short “the MV Act”) on account of death of Om Parkash, who expired in a motor vehicular accident which took place on

11.12.2005.

2. The case of the claimants was that on 11.12.2005, Om Parkash and two others were going towards Village Kawartan on their motor-cycle bearing Regn. No.HR-31-B-5065, which was being driven by one Ram Lal. Om Parkash was the pillion rider. They were followed by Hari Kesh, who was driving motor-cycle bearing Regn. No.HR-41-6493. When Om Parkash and others reached near the Garban Shah Gurudawara, Pehowa, in the meantime, a private bus bearing Regn. No.HR-65-1177 (hereinafter referred to as “the offending vehicle”) being driven by its driver (respondent No.1-

Sukhpal) rashly, negligently and at a very high speed, came from the opposite direction and struck against the motorcycle of Om Parkash and others as a result of which, all the three fell down on the road and received multiple and grievous injuries. All were taken to the hospital, where Om Parkash was declared to be brought dead and two others (Ram Pal and Surinder) were referred to LNJP Hospital, Kurukshetra. It was averred that the accident in question had occurred solely due to the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by respondent No.1.

3. FIR No.456 of 2005 under Sections 279, 337, 338, 304A IPC was registered at Police Station Pehowa.

4. It was averred that Om Parkash was hale and hearty. It was averred that at the time of accident, he was 22 years old. He was stated to be an agriculturist earning Rs.10,000/- per month by taking land on lease and that apart from this, he was also a tailor, earning Rs.6000/- per month. It was averred that he was the sole breadwinner of the family. On account of the untimely death of Om Parkash, the claimants claimed to have suffered immense financial loss, as well as irreparable loss of love, care and affection. It was averred that the claimants had also incurred expenses exceeding Rs.35,000/- on the last rites. Accordingly, adequate compensation along with interest from the date of accident till realization was claimed.

5. The driver and owner of the offending vehicle filed their joint written statement and denied the factum of the accident.

6. The insurance company of the offending vehicle raised its usual defences in its written statement and denied the factum of the accident.

7. From the pleadings of the parties, following consolidated issues were framed:

“1. Whether the accident resulting into injuries to claimants Ram Pal and Surinder and death of Om Parkash took place due to rash and negligent driving of bus No.HR-65-1177 by respondent No.1 ? OPP

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

3. Whether respondent No.1 was not holding any valid or effective driving licence at the time of alleged accident?OPR-3

4. Relief.”

8. Parties led their respective evidence.

9. After considering the evidence led on the record of the case, a finding was recorded by the MACT that the accident as a result of which Om Parkash had expired had taken place on account of the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle. His income was assessed as Rs.2400/- per month and the following compensation