IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

218 FAO-4356-2008(O&M)

Date of decision: 15.10.2025 Nisha Garg & Others ...Appellant(s)

Vs.

Suresh Kumar & Others ...Respondent(s)

***

CORAM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA Present:- Mr. Ritender Rathee, Advocate Mr. Ravinder Malik (Ravi), Advocate for the appellants.

Mr. Subhash Goyal, Advocate Mr. Vipul Sharma, Advocate for respondent No.3.

***

NIDHI GUPTA, J.

Present appeal has been filed by claimants seeking enhancement of compensation of Rs.3,25,000/- awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kurukshetra (hereinafter ‘the learned Tribunal’) vide Award dated 03.06.2008 passed in MACT Case No.212 dated 22.12.2006 filed under Sections 166 and 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act (hereinafter “the Act”). The 5 claimants are widow, 2 children and parents of the deceased Sanjeev Garg who was 35 years old at the time of accident.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the ld. Tribunal on the basis of pleadings and oral & documentary evidence adduced by the parties, concluded that deceased Sanjeev Garg had died due to the injuries suffered by him in a motor vehicular accident that took place on 09.10.2006 due to the rash and negligent driving of Combine Harvester bearing registration No.MP-04L-1312 (hereinafter “the offending vehicle”) being driven by respondent No.1, owned by respondent No.2 and insured by respondent No.3. The aforesaid compensation has been awarded along with interest @ 7.5% per annum. The respondents were held jointly and severally liable for payment of compensation.

3. Learned counsel for the appellants seeks enhancement of compensation by submitting that the learned Tribunal was in patent error in making a deduction of 50% towards contributory negligence on part of the deceased. It is submitted that the appellants had led overwhelming documentary and oral evidence to prove the factum of accident having been caused due to the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by respondent No.1. Moreover, income of the deceased has been taken on the lower side as only Rs.5,000/- per month; whereas at the time of his death, the deceased was earning Rs.20,000/- per month as he was working in the shop of Commission Agent. The deceased was also an Income Tax Payee which was proved from his Income Tax Return filed on 27.11.2016.

4. Ld. Counsel for the appellants submits that the learned MACT Kurukshetra has further fallen in error by holding that the case is of contributory in negligence and the accident has been held by the negligence of both the drivers of the vehicles. However, it was clearly proved before the learned MACT beyond reasonable doubt that the accident has occurred due to the sole negligence of respondent No.1 as the respondent No.1 was driving the Combine Harvester in the rash and negligent manner and at a very high speed and hit the car of the deceased by bringing the same on wrong side of the road. It was clearly proved before the learned MACT that the deceased Sanjeev Garg was driving his car in the correct side of the road while observing the traffic rules.

5. Furthermore, in granting the impugned compensation, learned Tribunal has failed to appreciate that all the appellants were solely dependent upon the deceased for their sustenance. Even amounts awarded under the other heads are on the lower side and deserve to be enhanced. Learned counsel accordingly prays that compensation awarded to the appellants be enhanced.

6. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.3-Insurance Company vehemently opposes the submissions made on behalf of the appellants/claimants and submits that the impugned Award suffers from no error. Learned counsel accordingly prays for dismissal of the present appeal.

7. No other argument is made on behalf of the parties.

8. I have heard learned counsel and perused the case file in detail. 9. The case as pleaded by the appellants in the Claim Petition before the Tribunal as recorded in Para 2 of impugned Award is as follows:-

“2. Brief fac