215 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

1) FAO-69-2002 (O&M)

Date of Decision: 20.04.2026 BRIJENDER KUMAR ......... Appellant Versus UMAR DEEN ..... Respondent

2) FAO-62-2002 (O&M)

NARENDER KUMAR ......... Appellant Versus UMAR DEEN ..... Respondent

3) FAO-70-2002 (O&M)

SMT.KAILASH DEVI ......... Appellant Versus UMAR DEEN ..... Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHVIR SINGH RATHOR Present : Mr. Brij Bhushan Sharma, Advocate for Mr. Deepak Suri, Advocate for the appellant(s).

Mr. Suvir Dewan, Advocate for respondent No.3.

Mr. Neeraj Khanna, Advocate for respondent No.6.

****

YASHVIR SINGH RATHOR , J. (Oral)

1. The aforesaid three appeals have been instituted against the Award dated 18.10.2000 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sonepat (for short “Tribunal”) in the petitions under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, filed by the appellants, seeking compensation on account of injuries suffered by Brijender Kumar, death of Sushil Kumar and death of Smt. Sarti Devi.

2. Claim petition No.40 of 30.05.1990, titled ‘Brijender Kumar Vs. Umer Deen and Others’ was instituted by claimant-Brijender Kumar, for grant of compensation on account of injuries suffered by him in a motor vehicular accident due to rash and negligent driving on the part of respondent No.1-Umer Deen, while driving offending truck No.HNA- 4655, which was owned by respondent No.2-Ram Avtar and insured with respondent No.3.

3. Claim petition No.42 of 31.05.1990, titled ‘Narender Kumar Vs. Umer Deen and Others’ was instituted by Narender Kumar for grant of compensation on account of death of his mother Sarti Devi in the same accident.

4. Claim petition No.39 of 31.05.1990, titled ‘Smt. Kailash Devi and others Vs. Umer Deen’ was instituted Kailash Devi for grant of compensation on account of death of Sushil Kumar in the same accident.

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

(i) Whether Sushil Kumar died as a result of rash or negligent driving of the truck in question by respondent No.1 as alleged? OPP (ii) Whether the petitioners are entitled to compensation?

If so, to what amount and from whom?OPP (iii) Whether the petition is bad or non-joinder of necessary parties as alleged? If so, to what effect. OPR (iv) Relief.

6. Thereafter, the parties led evidence in support of their case.

7. After hearing the parties and going through the material on the file, learned Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.1.65 lac as compensation to claimant-Brijender Kumar, on account of injuries suffered by him. A sum of Rs.32,000/- was awarded as compensation to claimant Narender Kumar on account of death of Sarti Devi, while a sum of Rs.3.19 lac was awarded as compensation to claimants Smt. Kailash Devi and Others on account of death of Sushil Kumar alongwith interest @ 12% per annum from the date of filing of claim petitions till realization payable by respondents jointly and severally.

8. Feeling aggrieved, the appeals in hand have been preferred.

The material on file has been perused and parties have been heard.

9. At the very outset, it is pertinent to mention that the record of the appeals as well as the Tribunal has got burnt in a fire incident in the High Court Registry and the appeals in hand shall be decided as per facts and evidence discussed in the award passed by the Tribunal.

10. Learned counsel for the appellant in FAO-69-2002 argued that the Tribunal has not appreciated the facts of the case and evidence on file in the correct perspective while assessing the compensation which is grossly inadequate. The claimant had suffered 45% permanent disability and he has been awarded a total compensation of Rs.1.65 lac for permanent disability, medical expenses and pain and sufferings. Learned counsel further argued that the compensation has not been awarded for the pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages as per settled law. Learned counsel prayed that impugned award is, thus, liable to be set aside and appellant is entitled to enhanced amount of compensation.