IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 20.04.2026 Munni @ Gulab Kaur and another ....Appellants V/s Baljinder Singh and another .…Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKRAM AGGARWAL Present: Mr. Ashwani Arora, Advocate, for the appellants.

Mr. Radhe Sham Sharma, Advocate, for respondent No.2-Insurance Co.

VIKRAM AGGARWAL, J. (ORAL)

The instant appeal has been preferred by the appellants/claimants seeking enhancement in compensation awarded to them by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chandigarh (for short “the MACT”) vide award dated 22.11.2019 on account of the death of one Mamta in a motor vehicular accident which took place on 04.12.2018.

2. The appellants/claimants, who are the parents of the deceased Mamta, instituted a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short “the MV Act”) seeking compensation of Rs.75 lakhs on account of the death of their daughter.

3. The case of the claimants was that on 04.12.2018, at about 9.15 A.M., Mamta was going from the hostel of Dev Samaj College, Sector-36, Chandigarh to District Education Office, Sector-19, Chandigarh for an inter- view on a motorcycle being driven by constable Baljeet Singh, whereas Mamta was a pillion rider. When they reached near ISCON Temple Sector-

36, Chandigarh on the dividing road of Sector 36 and 23, a car bearing Regn. No.CH-01-BD-9045 (hereinafter referred to as “the offending vehicle”), be- ing driven by respondent No.1 (Baljinder Singh) in a rash and negligent manner and at a very high speed came from the side of Kissan Bhawan Chowk and struck against their motorcycle. As a result of the impact, they both fell on the road and the head of Mamta struck against the boundary of the road. They were taken to GMSH Sector-16 where Mamta was declared brought dead.

4. FIR No.423 dated 04.12.2018 under Sections 279, 337, 304A IPC was registered at Police Station Sector 36, Chandigarh.

5. It was averred that Mamta (hereinafter referred to as “the deceased”) was 26 years old at the time of her death and had applied for the post of the Counselor in Education Department. Her monthly income was claimed to be Rs.50,000/- per month. Accordingly, a sum of Rs.75 lakhs was claimed as compensation.

6. The driver-cum-owner of the offending vehicle filed his written statement and denied the factum of the accident.

7. The insurance company of the offending vehicle raised its usual defences in the written statement and denied the factum of the accident. It was also averred that the driver was not holding a valid driving licence.

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

“1. Whether deceased Mamta died in a motor vehicular accident which took place on 4.12.2018 at about 9:15 am due to rash and negligent driving of Car no. CH-01-BD-9045 by respondent no. 1? OPP

2. Whether the claimants are entitled to compensation, on account of death of Mamta? If yes, from whom and to which extent?OPP

3. Whether the driver of the offending vehicle was not holding a valid driving licence at the time of accident and has violated the terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy, if so its effect?OPR

4. Relief.”

9. Parties led their respective evidence.

10. The MACT held that the accident as a result of which Mamta had expired, had taken place on account of the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by its driver.

11. The age of the deceased was assessed as 26 years. Her income was assessed as Rs. 10,000/- per month and after applying the multiplier of ‘17’ in terms of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Smt. Sarla Verma and others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another (2009) 6 SCC 121, the following compensation was awarded by the MACT:-

12. I have heard learned counsel for the parties.

13. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the deceased was holding a Masters of Arts degree in Psychology. At the time of accident, she was doing diploma of PGDGC (Post Graduate Diploma in Guidance and