IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Reserved on:14.10.2025 Pronouncement on:15.10.2025 BIMLA AND OTHERS … Appellants Versus DHARAM SINGH AND OTHERS … Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE VIRINDER AGGARWAL Present: Mr. Arnav Mittal, Advocate for the appellants.

Mr. Manu Loona, Advocate for the respondent No.3(Insurance company)

*****

VIRINDER AGGARWAL, J.

1. The present appeal is filed against the award dated 14.08.2001 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Gurgaon, whereby compensation ₹

of 2,75,000 with interest at rate of 9% per annum was awarded to the appellants/claimants on account of the death of Ajit Singh in a motor vehicular accident that occurred on 04.12.1998.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

2. Brief facts of the case are that on 4th December 1998 at about 11:30 p.m., Ajit Singh, aged 27 years, working as a truck driver, met with a fatal accident near Village Badshahpur. The accident occurred when a dumper bearing registration No. HR-38B-2467, driven by respondent No. 1 Dharam Singh in a rash and negligent manner, came from behind and hit Ajit Singh, causing severe injuries which proved fatal. The claimants, namely Smt. Bimla (widow of deceased Ajit Singh), her minor children Rohit, Mamta, and Pooja, and Smt. Chand Kaur (mother of the deceased), all residents of Village Badshahpur, District Gurgaon, filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Gurgaon, seeking ₹

compensation of 10,00,000/- on account of the death of Ajit Singh.

3. In the claim petition, the learned Tribunal, after considering the pleadings and evidence on record, held that the accident in question occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of dumper truck No. HR-38B-2467 by respondent No. 1, Dharam Singh. This finding was primarily based on the testimony of Om Parkash(PW-4), an eyewitness, who categorically stated that the said vehicle, driven at a high speed in a negligent manner struck the deceased Ajit Singh causing fatal injuries. The learned Tribunal noted that the driver did not enter the witness box to rebut this evidence and accordingly drew an adverse ₹

inference against him(respondent No.1). However, it awarded only 2,75,000/- by failing to correctly apply the established multiplier method and by not properly assessing the income of the deceased, with 9% interest from the date of the petition.

CONTENTIONS

4. Learned counsel for the appellant have assailed the award primarily on the ground that the compensation is grossly inadequate. It was argued that the deceased was 27 years of age at the time of the accident and therefore, a multiplier of 18 should have been applied instead of 16. It was further contended that the learned Tribunal also erred in assessing the income of the deceased on a very low basis, ignoring the evidence of his employer Satbir Singh (PW-3) who stated that the deceased, being a skilled truck driver, was ₹

earning 3,800 per month. It was further submitted that the learned Tribunal awarded meagre funeral expenses and failed to grant compensation towards loss of consortium and loss of estate. Therefore, the learned counsel sought an increase in the quantum of award.

5. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.3 (Insurance Company) supports the award passed by the learned Tribunal and submits that the findings recorded are based on proper appreciation of evidence and law.

There is no ground for interference with the well-reasoned award.

OBSERVATIONS AND FINDING

6. I have carefully heard the arguments advanced by the learned counsel representing the appellant and have thoroughly examined the learned Tribunal’s award.

7. The learned Tribunal, on an appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the party, rightly came to the categorical conclusion that the accident had occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by respondent No.1. Accordingly, respondents No. 1 & 2 (driver and owner) were h