##PAGE1##

CM-751-CII-2019;

CM-753-CII-2019 in/and

FAO-230-2019 (O&M) (cid:1)

Sr. No.127 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH

CM-751-CII-2019

CM-753-CII-2019 in/and

FAO-230-2019 (O&M)

Date of decision: 14th May 2026

SAVITRI AND OTHERS .....…Appellants

versus

JAI BHAGWAN AND OTHERS ........Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE HARPREET KAUR JEEWAN

Present: Mr. Garvit, Advocate for

Mr. Sandeep Goyat, Advocate

for the applicants-appellants.

Mr. Parunjeet Singh, Advocate

for respondent No.3-Insurance Company

(through video conferencing).

HARPREET KAUR JEEWAN, J. (ORAL)

CM-751-CII-2019

Allowed as prayed for. Delay of 47 days in filing the main

appeal is condoned.

CM stands disposed of.

Main case

1. The present appeal has been preferred by the appellants-

claimants aggrieved against the quantum of compensation awarded by the

Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Rohtak(hereinafter referred to as ‘the

Tribunal’), vide Award dated 08.05.2018.

2. As per the brief facts, on 27.03.2017, at about 7:30 PM, the

motorcyclist/deceased was returning to his house on a motorcycle bearing

Registration No.HR-15C-4611. When he reached in the area of Indus Public

SIMRANDEEP KAUR

2026.05.25 09:44

I attest to the accuracy and

integrity of this document

CM-751-CII-2019;

CM-753-CII-2019 in/and

FAO-230-2019 (O&M) (cid:2)

School, G.T. Road, Meham from Bhani Mato Road, he was hit by a Jeep

bearing Registration No.HR-61B-0219, which was being driven by Jai

Bhagwan-respondent No.1. The motorcyclist sustained multiple injuries and

he was shifted to PGIMS, Rohtak. Thereafter, he was shifted to Kinos

Hospital, Rohtak. Ultimately, he succumbed to the injuries sustained by him

in the said accident.

3. The appellants, who are the wife, son, daughter and mother of

the deceased, filed a claim petition, which was contested by the driver,

owner and Insurance Company of the Jeep.

4. The Tribunal observed that there was contributory negligence

on the part of the motorcyclist as well as the jeep driver. Regarding the

quantum of compensation, the Tribunal observed the age of the deceased as

53 years, considered the income of the deceased as Rs.7,500/- per month and

determined the compensation as Rs.8,87,080/-. The appellants-claimants

were held entitled to 50% of the said amount and they were awarded a sum

of Rs.5,81,368/-. The details of the compensation determined by the

Tribunal are as under:-

Sr. Heads Compensation Awarded

No.

1. Monthly income Rs.7,500/-

2. Future prospects @ 10% [Rs.7,500 + 750] = Rs.8,250/-

3. Deductions (1/4^th) [Rs.8,250 – Rs.2,063] = Rs.6,187/- (Taken as

Rs.6,190)

4. Multiplier of ‘11’ [Rs. 6,190X 11] = Rs.68,090/-

5. Annual income [Rs.68,090 X 12] = Rs.8,17,080/-

6. Loss of Estate Rs.15,000/-

7. (cid:3)(cid:4)(cid:5)(cid:6)(cid:4)(cid:7)(cid:8)(cid:9)(cid:10)(cid:11) Rs.40,000/-

8. (cid:12)(cid:10)(cid:5)(cid:13)(cid:7)(cid:14)(cid:15)(cid:16)(cid:17)(cid:18)(cid:19)(cid:13)(cid:5)(cid:6)(cid:13)(cid:6) Rs.15,000/-

9. (cid:20)(cid:13)(cid:21)(cid:9)(cid:22)(cid:14)(cid:15)(cid:16)(cid:17)(cid:18)(cid:19)(cid:13)(cid:5)(cid:6)(cid:13)(cid:6) Rs.2,75,657/-

7. Total Compensation Rs.11,62,737/-

50% Rs.5,81,368/-

Interest 9% per annum

SIMRANDEEP KAUR

2026.05.25 09:44

I attest to the accuracy and

integrity of this document

CM-751-CII-2019;

CM-753-CII-2019 in/and

FAO-230-2019 (O&M) (cid:23)

Negligence:-

5. Learned counsel for the appellants contends that the Tribunal

has wrongly held that there is contributory negligence on the part of the

deceased. No deduction in the compensation should have been made on this

ground.

6. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.3-Insurance

Company contends that there is an ample evidence on record to prove

contributory negligence on the part of the deceased/motorcyclist. It is further

contended that such findings of the Tribunal require no interference.

6.1. The Tribunal had recorded the following reasons while holding

the deceased-driver of the motorcycle equally liable for the accident:-

“xxx xxx xxx xxx

14. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going

thro