##PAGE1##

FAO-3598-2001 (O&M) [1]

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

FAO-3598-2001 (O&M)

Darkali ...Appellant

Versus

Subhash and others ...Respondents

Reserved on: 06.05.2026

Pronounced on: 11.05.2026

Pronounced fully/opera4ve part: Fully

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA

Argued by: Mr. S.K. Yadav, Advocate for the appellant.

Mr. Aseem Aggarwal, Advocate

for respondent No.4 – Insurance Company.

****

DEEPAK GUPTA, J.

The present appeal has been preferred by the claimant seeking

enhancement of compensa8on awarded vide judgment-cum-award dated

17.08.2000 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Narnaul.

2. The appellant-claimant is the unfortunate mother of deceased

Siya Ram, who lost his life in a motor vehicular accident, which occurred on

14.05.1999. As per the case set up before the Tribunal, the deceased was

travelling in bus bearing registra8on No.HR-47-0902. The said bus was

being driven by respondent No.1 in a rash and negligent manner. When the

bus reached near Hasanpur Limestone, some passengers requested the

driver to stop the vehicle. Though one passenger namely Ranbir Singh had

already alighted from the bus, deceased Siya Ram was s8ll in the process of

ge?ng down, when respondent No.1 suddenly accelerated the bus without

ensuring that the passengers had safely alighted. As a result thereof, Siya

Ram fell from the moving bus and sustained mul8ple grievous injuries. He

YOGESH MEHTA

2026.05.11 16:22

I attest to the accuracy and

integrity of this document

FAO-3598-2001 (O&M) [2]

was ini8ally taken to General Hospital, Narnaul and thereaAer referred to

PGIMS, Rohtak, however, he succumbed to the injuries on the way.

3. The deceased was stated to be about 30 years of age and

unmarried. The appellant, being his sole surviving dependent mother,

ins8tuted a pe88on under Sec8on 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988

seeking compensa8on from the driver, owner and insurer of the offending

bus.

4. Upon apprecia8on of the evidence on record, the learned

Tribunal returned a categorical finding that the accident occurred due to

rash and negligent driving of the offending bus by respondent No.1 and

that the said accident resulted in the death of Siya Ram. The Tribunal

accordingly awarded compensa8on to the tune of ₹1,15,200/- along with

interest, fastening joint and several liability upon all the respondents. While

assessing compensa8on, the Tribunal assessed the monthly income of the

deceased at ₹1,200/-, deducted 1/3rd towards personal expenses and

applied the mul8plier of 8. No addi8on towards future prospects was

granted and no amount was awarded under the conven8onal heads.

5. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant has contended

that the compensa8on assessed by the Tribunal is wholly inadequate and

contrary to the principles subsequently crystallized by Hon’ble Supreme

Court in Na(cid:3)onal Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi 2017(4) RCR

(Civil) 1009, Sarla Verma and others v. Delhi Transport Corpora(cid:3)on (2009)

6 Supreme Court Cases 121 and Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v.

Nanu Ram alias Chuhru Ram (2018) 18 SCC 130. It has been argued that

even in the absence of direct evidence regarding income, the minimum

wages prevailing at the relevant 8me ought to have been taken into

considera8on and further that the claimant being the sole dependent

YOGESH MEHTA

2026.05.11 16:22

I attest to the accuracy and

integrity of this document

FAO-3598-2001 (O&M) [3]

mother was also en8tled to consor8um and other conven8onal benefits.

6. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the

insurance company has not seriously disputed the applicability of the

aforesaid principles of law. However, it has been contended that since the

deceased was unmarried, deduc8on towards personal expenses ought to

be 50% instead of 1/3rd.

7. I have heard learned counsel for the par8es and have gone

through the record with their assistance.

8. The findings recorded by the Tribunal regarding rash and

negligent driving of the offending bus by respondent N