Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Online)(P&H) 81616

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

FAO-872-2022 (O&M)
XOBJC-98-2022 (O&M)

NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.
..Appellant
Versus
RANI AND ORS.
..Respondents

Reserved on: 17.04.2026
Pronounced on: 24.04.2026
Uploaded on : 27.04.2026

Whether only the operative part of the judgment is pronounced? NO
Whether full judgment is pronounced? YES

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA

Present: Mr. Vipul Sharma, Advocate
for Mr. Paul S. Saini, Advocate
for the appellant-Insurance Company.
Mr. Parminder Singh, Advocate
for respondent Nos.1 to 3/cross-objectors.

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Vipul Sharma, Paul S. Saini
For the Respondents: Parminder Singh

In fatal motor accident claims, financial assistance received by dependents of a deceased employee under state-notified compassionate appointment rules must be deducted from the total compensation awarded under the Act to prevent double recovery and ensure 'just' compensation.

Headnote:(A) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Sections 166, 168, and 173 - Death in motor accident - Liability and quantum of compensation - Apportionment of negligence - Whether amount received by dependents under State Rules providing for compassionate assistance is deductible from the compensation awarded under the Act - Held, such amount is liable to be deducted to avoid double benefit to the claimants. (Paras 21-24)

(B) Negligence - Stationary vehicle on highway during heavy fog - Contributory negligence - Driver failing to exercise due care while parking vehicle without indicators, reflectors or lights on highway during poor visibility is solely responsible for accident. (Paras 14-17, 20)

(C) Compensation - Assessment - Loss of dependency and conventional heads - Future prospects - Appellate Court can correct downward errors in computation to ensure just compensation. (Paras 26-27)

Facts of the case:
An appeal and cross-objections arose from an award regarding a fatal accident involving a bus and a stationary truck parked on a highway during heavy fog. The claimants sought enhancement of compensation, while the insurer contended for contributory negligence and deduction of compassionate assistance payments already received by the dependents of the deceased.

Findings of Court:
The court upheld the finding of sole negligence against the stationary vehicle's driver. It affirmed that payments received as state-provided compassionate assistance by the legal heirs of a deceased employee are deductible from motor accident compensation to prevent duplication of benefits. The court re-calculated the total compensation, incorporating future prospects and adjusting for the necessary deductions.

Issues: Whether the accident was caused by contributory negligence and whether the amount paid as government compassionate assistance is deductible from the compensation awarded under the Act.

Ratio Decidendi: There is no duplication of compensation or windfall allowed; therefore, state-provided compassionate financial assistance paid to dependents of a deceased employee must be deducted from the compensation awarded under the Act to ensure the award remains 'just' and avoids double benefit.

Result: Appeal partly allowed; cross-objections dismissed.

SUDEEPTI SHARMA, J.

FAO-872-2022

1. The present appeal has been filed by the appellant-Insurance company against the award dated 26.10.2021 passed in a claim petition filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Karnal (for short, 'the Tribunal'), wherein the claim petition filed by the claimants was allowed and appellant-Insurance company was made liable to pay the compensation.

XOBJC-98-2022

2. The present cross-objections have been preferred by cross objector/claimants against the award dated 26.10.2021 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Karnal in the claim petition filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, for enhancement of compensation, granted to them to the tune of Rs.57,90,000/- along with interest @ 6 % per annum on account of injuries suffered by Balraj in the accident.

3. Since the appeal filed by the Insurance Company and the cross objections filed by the cross-objectors/claimants are arising out of the same award dated 26.10.2021 passed by the learned Tribunal, therefore, FAO-872-2022 and XOBJC-98-2022 are decided vide this common judgment.

BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE

4. Brief facts of the case are that on 21.12.2017 at about 9.20 A.M., the claimant-injured Randhir Singh had boarded the bus bearing registration no. HR45-B-6252, which was being driven by its driver i.e. respondent no.1 namely Balraj Singh from Karnal to Chandigarh. When the said bus reached near Nilokheri Jhilmil Dhaba on G.T. Road, Karnal, then the driver of the said bus hit the said bus into a truck bearing registration no. HR55-P-0165. Both the said drivers of the vehicles i.e. driver of the bus as well as the driver of the truck were negligent and careless as they were not observing the traffic rules. The driver of the bus was driving the bus in rash and negligent manner without observing the traffic rules and he did not see the truck parked on the G.T. Road. Similarly, the driver of the truck was also careless and negligent as he had parked his truck on the G.T. Road without any indicator as well as light. Due to this accident, the driver of the bus along with so many passengers sustained serious, multiple and grievous injuries. It is further pleaded that the claimant-injured was sitting in the bus just behind the seat of the driver. Due to the impact of this accident, the claimant-injured sustained serious, multiple and grievous injuries including the fracture on his right knee, right leg and right thigh as well as on his back bone and various other abrasions on various parts of his body. The other passengers had also sustained serious, multiple and grievous injuries in the accident in question. After the accident, the claimant-injured was taken to General Hospital, Karnal where he was medico legally examined vide MLR No.KJ-90/17 dated 21.12.2017 and thereafter due to his serious, multiple and grievous injuries, he was shifted to Medline Hospital, Duggal Colony, Karnal for treatment. He has spent an amount of Rs.4,00,000/- on his treatment, medicines, hospitalization, doctor fees, transportation, special diet etc. Operation on his leg was also done by the Doctor. Thereafter, FIR bearing no. 482 dated 21.12.2017 under sections 283 and 304-A IPC was registered with the Police Station Butana, Karnal. It is further pleaded that at the time of accident, claimant-injured was having 30 years of age. He was running a shop of tyre puncture situated at Sambhli Road, Nissing, District Karnal and was earning a sum of Rs.15,000/- per month. He was the only bread earner of his family. But due to the serious, multiple and grievous injuries sustained in the accident in question, he has become crippled and he is even unable to move, walk, sit, climb the stair etc. He is still under treatment. It is prayed that a sum of Rs.20,00,000/- as compensation along with interest at the rate of 18% per annum from the date of accident till its realization may kindly be awarded in favour of t

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Online)(P&H) 81616

In fatal motor accident claims, financial assistance received by dependents of a deceased employee under state-notified compassionate appointment rules must be deducted from the total compensation awarded under the Act to prevent double recovery and ensure 'just' compensation.

Cases Referred (3)