IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 07.04.2026 National Insurance Company Ltd., Chandigarh through its Regional Manager .......... Appellant Versus Smt. Balwinder Kaur and others .......... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJA Present:- Mr. Deepak Suri, Advocate for the appellant.

****

HARKESH MANUJA, J. (ORAL)

The present appeal has been preferred by the appellant-

Insurance Company assailing the award passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jalandhar (for short, “the Tribunal”), whereby compensation has been awarded in favour of the claimants on account of injuries suffered by Nirmal Singh and Rupinder Singh and death of Gurjant Singh in a motor vehicular accident dated 22.11.2003.

FACTS [2] Briefly stating, the case of the claimants is that on 22.11.2003, Nirmal Singh along with Gurjant Singh, Dharam Dass, Santosh Yadav and Rupinder Singh were travelling in a Mahindra Marshal Jeep bearing registration No. PB-02-AA-8016, being driven by respondent No.1 (Sangdil). When the vehicle reached near village Bal Hukami, it went off the road and struck against a tree, resulting in injuries to the occupants besides the death of Gurjant Singh.

[3] Three separate claim petitions were filed which were decided by a common award. The Tribunal, after appreciating the evidence on record, held that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle and awarded compensation as under:-



Nirmal Singh – Rs. 5,000/-



Rupinder Singh – Rs. 3,91,000/-



Blawinder Kaur (mother of deceased Gurjant Singh) – Rs.

3,00,000/-

The liability was fastened jointly and severally upon the driver, owner and the Insurance Company.

[4] Being aggrieved of the aforesaid award, the appellant–Insurance Company preferred the present appeal, primarily contending that the impugned award passed by the learned Tribunal was contrary to the facts and evidence available on record and the settled principles of law.

ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLANT-INSURANCE COMPANY [5] Learned counsel for the appellant/Insurance Company primarily submits that the claim petitions having been decided under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, were not maintainable as the income of the claimants exceeded Rs. 40,000/- per annum. He further argues that the learned Tribunal erred in granting compensation beyond the structured formula provided under Schedule II of the Act. Lastly, learned counsel submits that excessive amount was awarded under the heads of medical expenses, pain and sufferings and attendant charges, which was contrary to the statutory limit and, therefore, prayed for setting aside/modification of the award.

DISCUSSION AND REASONING [6] I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the paper-book of the case.

MAINTAINABILITY UNDER SECTION 163-A [7] The primary contention of the appellant is that as per the claim petition, the income of the claimants exceeded Rs. 40,000/- per annum and, therefore, the petition(s) under Section 163-A were not maintainable. This argument is devoid of merit. The learned Tribunal has categorically recorded that there was no cogent documentary evidence to prove the alleged income of the claimants. In absence of proof, the Tribunal treated the injured/deceased as labourers and assessed income on notional basis.

[7.1] Further, the issue with regard to maintainability of an application under Section 163-A of the Act, in circumstances where the claimants have alleged income of the injured/deceased to be in excess of Rs. 40,000/- per annum, came up for consideration before the Division Bench of this Court in “Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Smt. Saroj and ors.,” 2007 (1) RCR (Civil) 152. The Court after taking into consideration judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court “Deepal Girishbhai Soni and others vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Baroda” reported as 2004 (5) SCC 385 has held in para 5 that the said judgment does not lay down as an a