SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(P&H) 81631

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Sudeepti Sharma, J
National Insurance Company Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
Sandeep Kumar – Respondent
FAO-871-2022



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

In motor vehicle negligence claims, parking a heavy vehicle on a highway without indicators or warning signals during poor visibility creates sole liability for the driver, and employment-related benefits received by dependents due to death are not deductible from statutory compensation.

Headnote:(A) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Section 166 - Fatal accident - Negligence - Compensation - Stationary vehicle parked on highway at night/foggy conditions without indicators/reflectors - Accident caused by bus hitting rear of stationary truck - Whether contributory negligence - In cases under the Motor Vehicles Act, the standard of proof is one of preponderance of probabilities - Failure to place indicator/reflector on a parked heavy vehicle in foggy conditions constitutes sole negligence on the part of the parked vehicle's driver - Evidence of eyewitness and filing of police report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. sufficient to establish negligence. (Paras 12, 13, 16)

(B) Compensation - Dependency - Deduction of benefits - Whether compassionate assistance/salary of deceased received by heirs is deductible - Amounts received by legal heirs under employment-related benefit schemes, including pension/gratuity, are earned by the deceased through contractual service and are not deductible from motor accident compensation. (Paras 58, 59)

Facts of the case:
An accident occurred on 21.12.2017 involving a public transport bus and a stationed truck on G.T. Road, Karnal, during heavy fog. The truck was parked in the middle of the road without indicators or reflectors. The bus driver collided with the stationed truck, resulting in his own death and injuries to passengers. The Insurance Company appealed the Tribunal's decision, arguing for contributory negligence of the bus driver and challenging the quantum of compensation.

Findings of Court:
The court affirmed the Tribunal's finding that the accident occurred due to the sole negligence of the truck driver. It held that parking a heavy vehicle in the middle of a highway without safety signals during poor visibility is a rash and negligent act. The court also held that employment benefits/compassionate assistance are not deductible from the compensation amount.

Issues: The main issues were whether the accident involved contributory negligence by the bus driver and whether the amount of compensation was excessive, specifically regarding deductions for employment benefits.

Ratio Decidendi: The principle of preponderance of probabilities applies to motor accident claims. Leaving a heavy vehicle stationary on a highway without warnings in foggy conditions is the sole cause of the accident, negating claims of contributory negligence. Benefits accrued to dependents via the deceased's service contract are not deductible from statutory compensation.

Result: Appeal dismissed.

Table of Content
1. court jurisdiction and factual background of the motor accident claim. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6)
2. appellate arguments regarding contributory negligence and compensation assessment. (Para 7 , 8 , 9)
3. determining sole negligence in accidents involving stationary vehicles in poor visibility. (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17)
4. evaluation of compensation quantum and disposal of the appeal. (Para 18 , 19 , 20 , 21)

SUDEEPTI SHARMA, J.

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.

BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE

2. 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 the claimant and against the respondents along with cost.

3. Upon notice of the claim petition, respondents appeared and contested the claim petition by filing their separate written replies denying the factum of accident/compensation.

4. From the pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal f

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top