IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH (224) FAO-805-2002 (O&M)

Reserved on : 11.05.2026 Pronounced on : 21.05.2026 Uploaded on : 21.05.2026 Ram Kumar ...Appellant Versus Baljeet and Others ... Respondents CORAM :HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMARINDER SINGH GREWAL Present: Mr. Robin Dutt, Advocate, and Mr. Jagriti Thakur, Advocate, and Mr. Kartar Singh, Advocate for the appellant.

Mr. D.K. Dogra, Advocate, for respondent No.3-Insurance Company.

***

Amarinder Singh Grewal, J.

1. The claimant-appellant has preferred this appeal seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded vide Award dated 12.09.2001, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jagadhari (hereinafter referred ₹

to as 'the learned Tribunal'). The learned Tribunal awarded a sum of 45,000/- along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till realization, on account of injuries sustained by the appellant in a motor vehicular accident dated 17.08.1999, involving truck bearing registration No. HR-37-7920, which was allegedly driven by respondent No. 1 in a rash and negligent manner

2. Briefly stated, the facts as emerge from the impugned Award are that the appellant-claimant Ram Kumar filed a petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 seeking compensation on account of injuries sustained by him in a motor vehicular accident dated 17.08.1999 at about 3:00 PM. It was pleaded that he along with Sohan Lal son of Phool Chand was travelling on motorcycle bearing registration No. HR-02C-1102 towards Chaharwala. At about 3:00 PM, when they reached near Village Chanda Kheri, near Pargati Metal, truck bearing registration No. HR-37-7920, being driven by respondent No.1 in a rash and negligent manner, suddenly turned towards Pargati Metal without giving any signal or indicator and abruptly applied brakes. This maneuvre led to a collision, resulting in multiple injuries to the claimant and the pillion rider, as well as damage to the motorcycle, a fact substantiated by the police charge sheet (Ex. P-18). While respondent Nos. 1, 2, and 3 contested the petition, the learned Tribunal, upon appreciating the evidence, concluded that the accident resulted from contributory negligence, apportioning 75% liability to the truck driver and 25% to the claimant and ₹

awarded a compensation of 45,000/- with interest at 9% per annum. Dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation, the claimant has preferred the present appeal seeking enhancement.

3. Learned counsel for the claimant-appellant contends that the learned Tribunal has erred both on facts and in law while awarding a meagre ₹

compensation of 45,000/-, which is wholly inadequate and not commensurate with the nature of injuries and permanent disability suffered by the appellant. It is submitted that the learned Tribunal has wrongly decided Issue No.1 by attributing 25% contributory negligence to the claimant despite the fact that the accident stood duly proved on record to have occurred solely due to the rash and negligent driving of respondent No.1-driver. Learned counsel further submitted that the learned Tribunal has misapplied the judgment in Suraj Bhan versus Sat Pal, reported as 1997(3) PLR 78, which was not applicable to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case. Furthermore, argued that the learned Tribunal has illegally awarded only a lump sum compensation of ₹

45,000/- and has further erred in deducting 25% thereof on account of alleged contributory negligence, besides failing to award any compensation towards permanent disability despite the statement of Dr. Deepan Jain and the disability certificate available on record establishing that the appellant had suffered 15% permanent disability on account of the injuries sustained in the accident. It has, thus, been prayed that the impugned award be modified and the compensation enhanced appropriately, as the appellant had claimed compensation to the tune ₹

of 5,00,000/- in the claim petition.

4. Per contra, learned cou