Punjab-Haryana High Court
National Insurance Co Ltd vs Daya Chand & Ors on 31 January, 2026
Author: Sudeepti Sharma
Bench: Sudeepti Sharma
FAO-5927-2015 (O&M) -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
FAO-5927-2015 (O&M)
Reserved on : 30.01.2026
Date of Pronouncement : 31.01.2026
Date of Uploading : 04.02.2026
National Insurance Company Limited ......Appellant
Vs.
Daya Chand and others ......Respondents
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. R.C.Kapoor, Advocate,
for the appellant.
Mr. Mohan Singh Rana, Advocate,
for respondents No.1 to 3.
Ms. Shweta Bawa, Advocate, and
Mr. Naveen, Advocate,
for respondent No.4.
****
SUDEEPTI SHARMA J.
1. The present appeal has been preferred against the award dated
07.07.2017 passed in the claim petition filed under Sections 166/140 of the
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,
1 of 34
::: Downloaded on – 14-02-2026 04:02:14 :::
FAO-5927-2015 (O&M) -2-
Palwal (for short, ‘the Tribunal’), whereby the appellant-Insurance company
was held liable to pay the compensation to the claimants/respondents No.1
and 2 to the tune of Rs.8,20,000/- along with interest @ 7.5% per annum on
account of death of Inderjeet.
BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE
2. Brief facts of the case are that on 01.01.2014, Jasbir (since
deceased), along with Inderjeet (since deceased), was returning from school
after attending the annual function on a motorcycle bearing registration No.
HR-50C-3980. On the way, upon meeting Satbir and Mehar Chand at
Ghasera turn, the motorcycle was stopped. Mehar Chand also took a lift on
the said motorcycle, whereas Satbir proceeded on another motorcycle.
When they reached near the water hut, a tractor bearing registration No. HR-
38S-5957, attached with a trolley and driven by respondent No.1 in a rash
and negligent manner, came from the side of Hassanpur and while crossing,
struck against the motorcycle of deceased Jasbir. As a result of the impact,
all three occupants fell onto the kachha road. Respondent No.1 abandoned
the tractor-trolley at the spot and fled away. Jasbir succumbed to the injuries
at the spot, whereas Mehar Chand and Inderjeet were taken to General
Hospital, Palwal. Considering their serious condition, they were referred to
Safdarjung Hospital, Delhi. However, Inderjeet succumbed to his injuries on
02.01.2014. The matter was reported to the police and in this regard, FIR
No.4 dated 02.01.2014, under Sections 279, 337 and 304-A the Indian Penal
2 of 34
::: Downloaded on – 14-02-2026 04:02:14 :::
FAO-5927-2015 (O&M) -3-
Code, 1860 was registered against respondent No.1 at Police Station
Hassanpur.
3. Upon notice of the claim petition, respondents appeared and
contested the claim petition by filing their separate written replies and
denied the factum of the accident/compensation.
4. From the pleadings of the parties, learned Tribunal framed the
following issues:-
“1. Whether the accident in question resulting into the
death of Jasbir son of Hari Singh and Inderjeet
and causing injuries to the petitioner Mahesh took
place due to alleged rash and negligent driving of
Tractor bearing registration no.HR 38S 5957 by
the respondent no.1? OPP
2. If issue no.1 is proved, whether petitioners are
entitled to any compensation, if so how much and
from whom? OPP
3. Whether respondent no.1 was not holding a valid
and effective driving licence to drive the offending
vehicle on the date of accident? OPR3
4. Whether the respondent no.2 has violated the
terms and conditions of policy exonerating the
liability of the insurance company? OPR3.
5. Relief. ”
5. In support of their pleadings, both the parties led their
respective evidence.
6. After taking into consideration the pleadings and the evidence
on record, the learned Tribunal awarded compensation to the
3 of 34
::: Downloaded on – 14-02-2026 04:02:14 :::
FAO-5927-2015 (O&M) -4-
claimants/respondents to the tune of Rs.8,20,000/- along with interest @
7.5% per annum on account of death of Inderjit and appellant-Insurance
Company was held liable to pay compensation. Hence, the present appeal.
SUBMISSIONS OF THE LEARNED COUNSELS FOR THE PARTIES
7. Learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company
contends that the learned Tribunal has erred in holding that the accident
took place due to rash and negligent driving of offending vehicle. He
further contends that the present accident occurred due to contributory
negligence as the driver of motorcycle was himself negligent since he was
carrying three persons on motorcycle bearing No.HR-50C-3980. He further
contends that the compensation awarded by learned Tribunal is on higher
side and deserve to be reduced as per settled law.
8. Learned counsel further submits that the accident in question
occurred on 01.01.2014, i.e., prior to the judgment rendered by the
Constitution Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in National Insurance
Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi. It is contended that, in view of the fact
that the question regarding enhancement of compensation under the
conventional heads by granting 10% increase after every three years has
been referred to larger Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Hasina
Yasmin & Ors. Petitioners v. National Insurance Company Ltd. & Anr.,
Therefore, such enhancement is presently impermissible and unsustainable
in law. Therefore, he prays that the present appeal be allowed and award be
modified/reduced.
4 of 34
::: Downloaded on - 14-02-2026 04:02:14 :::
FAO-5927-2015 (O&M) -5-
9. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 1 to 3-
claimants contends that a finding of contributory negligence can be returned
only when there is cogent and reliable evidence on record to establish that
the driver of the other vehicle also contributed to the occurrence of the
accident. It is submitted that, in the present case, the driver of the offending
vehicle has not entered the witness box to depose that the accident occurred
due to any negligence on the part of the driver of the motorcycle. In the
absence of such evidence, learned counsel submits that the plea of
contributory negligence is wholly untenable and cannot be sustained in law.
Consequently, the finding of the learned Tribunal holding the driver of the
offending vehicle solely negligent calls for no interference. He further
contends that the amount of compensation awarded to the claimants is on
lower side and deserves to be enhanced as per latest law.
10. Learned counsel for respondent No.4 argues on the lines of
award.
11. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and carefully
perused the whole record of this Court with his able assistance.
12. Before proceeding further, it is relevant to reproduce the
relevant portion of the award dated 07.07.2015 passed by the learned
Tribunal:-
Issues No.1 :
11. To prove this issue, claimants have examined Satbir
as PW4, who is the eye witness of the accident and
author of the FIR. He tendered his affidavit Ex.PW4/A5 of 34
::: Downloaded on – 14-02-2026 04:02:14 :::
FAO-5927-2015 (O&M) -6-
in his evidence, wherein he deposed that on 1.1.2014
Jasbir (since deceased) alongwith Inderjet (since
deceased) was coming from school after attending
annual function on a motorcycle bearing no.HR 50C
3980. On seeing him one Mehar Chand son of Lala Ram
(injured), they stopped at Ghasera More. Mehar Chand
also took lift on the motorcycle of Jasbir (since
deceased). He (Satbir) took lift at some other motorcycle
and the same was following the motorcycle of the
deceased. When they reached near water hut, ahead of
Ghasera turn situated at Hassanpur road, in the mean
time a tractor bearing registration no.HR 38S 5957 being
driven by respondent no.1 in a rash and negligent
manner came from Hassanpur side. As soon as motor-
cycle of Jasbir was crossing, respondent no.1 hit the
same. All the trio fell down on the kachha road. After
causing the accident respondent no.1, leaving the
tractortrolley at the spot fled away. Jasbir sustained
multiple grievous injuries on various vital parts of his
body and he died at the spot. Mehar Chand and Inderjeet
were rushed to General Hospital, Palwal where they
were medicolegally examined. He further deposed that
the accident in question took place due to rash and
negligent driving of the offending tractor by respondent
no.1 He further deposed that police recorded his
statement on the basis of which formal FIR No.4 dated
2.1.2014 Ex.P4, under Sections 279,337 and 304A IPC
was registered at Police Station Hassanpur. Mahesh
(claimantinjured) has appeared in the witness box as
PW1 and by way of his affidavit Ex.PW1/A he has
reiterated the stand taken by him in his petition. Besides
6 of 34
::: Downloaded on – 14-02-2026 04:02:14 :::
FAO-5927-2015 (O&M) -7-
it, PW2 Jai Kishan, Ahlmad in the court of learned Shri
Ashok Kumar, learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class,
Hodal has brought the summoned file and stated that
respondent no.1 is facing trial before the court of learned
Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Hodal in connection with
the accident in question. Moreover, respondent no.1 has
not appeared in the witness box to rebut the evidence led
by the claimants. Therefore, an adverse inference is
liable to be drawn against him. Reliance on this point
can be placed upon the authority of the Hon’ble High
Court of Punjab & Haryana in Raju and others Vs.
Sukhwinder Singh and others 2006(4) RCR (Civil) 82.
12. Claimants Smt.Laltesh and others have placed on
record copy of the post mortem report of Jasbir as
Ex.P109, which reveal that the cause of death was ante
mortem head injury which was sufficient to cause death
in ordinary course of nature. Mehar Chand (injured) has
placed on file his discharge card Ex.P108, discharge
summary of Guru Nanak Hospital, Palwal Ex.P109 and
copy of MLR Ex.P130. The claimants Daya have
produced copy of post mortem report of Inderjeet as
Ex.P119 which shows that the cause of death in this case
was due to shock and haemorrhage due to injuries to
vital organs i.e. brain and multiple fracture which were
ante mortem in nature and sufficient to cause death in
ordinary course of nature. The post mortem reports of
Jasbir and Inderjeet and the discharge card, discharge
summary and MLR of Mehar Chand also depict the
injuries on their person, apparently sustained in the
accident in question.
7 of 34
::: Downloaded on - 14-02-2026 04:02:14 :::
FAO-5927-2015 (O&M) -8-
13. The above evidence led by the petitioners leads to
an irresistible conclusion that the accident in question
took place due to rash and negligent driving of tractor
bearing no. HR 38S 5957 by respondent no.1 resulting in
death of Jasbir and Inderjeet and injuries to Mehar
Chand. This issue is, therefore, decided in favour of the
claimants and against the respondents.
Issues No.2, 3 and 4:
In Claim Petition No.102 of 2014 titled Smt.Laltesh
Versus Satya Parkash and others:
14. Learned counsel for the claimants argued that
deceased was 19 years of age on the date of accident. He
was studying in 10th class and also giving tuitions to the
students thereby earning Rs.9,000/ per month. The
claimant no.1 widow, and claimants no.2 and 3 being
parents of the deceased were entirely dependent upon his
income. The claimant no.1 has lost her life partner in
young age and claimants no.2 and 3 have lost their
beloved son in the accident in question. The untimely
death of deceased Jasbir has brought the claimants at the
verge of starvation with no source of their livelihood. No
amount can compensate the loss of life, still the
complainants needs adequate compensation for their
survival.
15. On the other hand, learned counsel for the
respondents argued that Jasbir (since deceased) did not
suffer any injury in the accident in question. He was a
labourer and was not earning more than Rs.4000/ per
month. The claimants have procured forged PMR of the
deceased just to extract compensation. They have not
even produced any witness to prove that he was giving
8 of 34
::: Downloaded on – 14-02-2026 04:02:14 :::
FAO-5927-2015 (O&M) -9-
tuitions to the students thereby 13 Laltesh Vs. Satya
Parkash earning Rs.9000/ per month as alleged.
Therefore, they are not liable to any amount of
compensation.
16. So far as age of the deceased is concerned, in para
no.3 of the petition, the claimants have mentioned his age
as 19 years. The claimants have produced on file copy of
post mortem report of Jasbir as Ex.P109 which also
reveals that Jasbir was 19 years of age at the time of his
death. Thus, keeping in view the material available on
file, the age of the deceased is assessed as 19 years.
17. To prove the income of the deceased, claimants
no.1 Smt.Laltesh, wife of deceased Jasbir, when appeared
in the witness box as PW3 has stated that the deceased
Jasbir was a student of 10th class at Brij Mandal School,
village Khambi and was also giving tuitions to the
students thereby earning Rs.9,000/ per month. The
claimants have not placed on file any document with
regard to his income from tuition. They have even not
produced any witness to prove that he was giving tuitions
to the students. However, he being 19 years of age was
capable enough to earn his livelihood. The accident in
question took place on 1.1.2014. A labourer in those days
was fetching Rs.5000/ per month approximately. Thus,
the income of the deceased is determined as Rs.5000/ per
month.
18. In this case, the deceased died at the age of 19
years and was earning a fixed sum without provision for
annual increment etc. Thus, the question arises whether
in a case of labourer who was getting a fixed sum without
any provision of annual increment etc., an addition of 50
9 of 34
::: Downloaded on – 14-02-2026 04:02:14 :::
FAO-5927-2015 (O&M) -10-
percent increase in his total income is liable to be taken
towards future prospects. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of
India in case titled Smt. Sarla Verma Versus Delhi
Transport Corporation (SC) 2009(3) RCR (CIVIL) 77
has observed that :
“In view of the imponderables and uncertainties,
we are in favour of adopting as a rule of thumb, an
addition of 50% of actual salary to the actual
salary income of the deceased towards future
prospects, where the deceased had a permanent
job and was below 40 years. (Where the annual
income is in the taxable range, the words “actual
salary” should be read as “actual salary less
tax”). The addition should be only 30% if the age
of the deceased was 40 to 50 years. There should
be no addition, where the age of the deceased is
more than 50 years. Though, the evidence may
indicate a different percentage of increase, it is
necessary to standardise the addition to avoid
different yardsticks being applied or different
methods of calculation being adopted. Where the
deceased was selfemployed or was on a fixed
salary (without provision for annual increments,
etc.), the courts will usually take only the actual
income at the time of death. A departure therefrom
should be made only in rare and exceptional cases
involving special circumstances”.
19. The Hon’ble Apex Court in case titled as
Santosh Devi Vs. National Insurance Company
Limited and others 2012 STPL(Web) 248 SC in
Civil Appeal No. 3723 of 2012 (arising out of
10 of 34
::: Downloaded on – 14-02-2026 04:02:14 :::
FAO-5927-2015 (O&M) -11-
SLP (C) No.24489 of 2010) decided on
23.04.2012 has further observed that :
“We find it extremely difficult to fathom any
rationale for the observation made in paragraph
24 of the judgment in Sarla Verma’s case that
where the deceased was selfemployed or was on a
fixed salary without provision for annual
increment, etc., the Courts will usually take only
the actual income at the time of death and a
departure from this rule should be made only in
rare and exceptional cases involving special
circumstances. In our view, it will be naive to say
that the wages or total emoluments/income of a
person who is selfemployed or who is employed on
a fixed salary without provision for annual
increment, etc., would remain the same throughout
his life. The rise in the cost of living affects
everyone across the board. It does not make any
distinction between rich and poor. As a matter of
fact, the effect of rise in prices which directly
impacts the cost of living is minimal on the rich
and maximum on those who are selfemployed or
who get fixed income/emoluments. They are the
worst affected people. Therefore, they put extra
efforts to generate additional income necessary for
sustaining their families. The salaries of those
employed under the Central and State
Governments and their agencies/instrumentalities
have been revised from time to time to provide a
cushion against the rising prices and provisions
have been made for providing security to the
11 of 34
::: Downloaded on – 14-02-2026 04:02:14 :::
FAO-5927-2015 (O&M) -12-
families of the deceased employees. The salaries of
those employed in private sectors have also
increased manifold. Till about two decades ago,
nobody could have imagined that salary of Class
IV employee of the Government would be in five
figures and total emoluments of those in higher
echelons of service will cross the figure of rupees
one lac. Although, the wages/income of those
employed in unorganized sectors has not registered
a corresponding increase and has not kept pace
with the increase in the salaries of the Government
employees and those employed in private sectors
but it cannot be denied that there has been
incremental enhancement in the income of those
who are selfemployed and even those engaged on
daily basis, monthly basis or even seasonal basis.
We can take judicial notice of the fact that with a
view to meet the challenges posed by high cost of
living, the persons falling in the latter category
periodically increase the cost of their labour. In
this context, it may be useful to give an example of
a tailor who earns his livelihood by stitching
cloths. If the cost of living increases and the prices
of essentials go up, it is but natural for him to
increase the cost of his labour. So will be the cases
of ordinary skilled and unskilled labour, like,
barber, blacksmith, cobbler, mason etc. Therefore,
we do not think that while making the observations
in the last three lines of paragraph 24 of Sarla
Verma’s judgment, the Court had intended to lay
down an absolute rule that there will be no
12 of 34
::: Downloaded on – 14-02-2026 04:02:14 :::
FAO-5927-2015 (O&M) -13-
addition in the income of a person who is self-
employed or who is paid fixed wages. Rather, it
would be reasonable to say that a person who is
selfemployed or is engaged on fixed wages will
also get 30 per cent increase in his total income
over a period of time and if he/she becomes victim
of accident then the same formula deserves to be
applied for calculating the amount of
compensation”.
20. In this case the age of the deceased was 19 years at
the time of accident. Thus, in view of the law laid down in
Santosh Devi‘s case (supra) an increase of 50% is liable
to be taken in the income of the deceased which comes to
be Rs.2500/ per month. In this way, total income of the
deceased comes to Rs.7500/ per month (Rs.5000/ +
Rs.2500/) or Rs.90,000/ per annum.
21. The number of dependents upon the deceased are
three, therefore, in view the law laid down in Smt. Sarla
Verma’s case (supra), where the number of dependent
family members are 2 to 3, the deduction should be 1/3rd.
Thus, the dependency of the claimants comes to
Rs.60,000/ (90,00030,000) per annum.
22. As discussed above the age of deceased was 19
years at the time of accident. Therefore, keeping in view
the law laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, in
Sarla Verma’s case (supra) the multiplier of 18 is to be
applied in this case. Accordingly, the claimants are
entitled to compensation of Rs.60,000 x 18= 10,80,000/).
23. The claimant No. 1 Smt.Laltesh, widow of deceased
is further awarded a sum of Rs.10,000/ as consortium.
The claimants are also awarded a sum of Rs.10,000/ on
13 of 34
::: Downloaded on – 14-02-2026 04:02:14 :::
FAO-5927-2015 (O&M) -14-
account of expenditure incurred on transportation & last
rites of the deceased.
24. In this way, claimants are awarded a total
compensation mentioned below:
Sr. Head under which
Amount
No. amount Awarded
1. Loss of dependency : Rs.10,80,000/-
2. Transportation & Last : Rs.10,000/-
Rites expenses.
3. Compensation on account : Rs.10,000/-
of consortium.
TOTAL : Rs.11,00,000/-
25. Thus, claimants are held entitled to a total
compensation of Rs.11,00,000/ (Rs.eleven lacs only).
In Claim Petition No.RBT 129 of 2014 titled Mehar
Chand and another Versus Satya Parkash and others:
26. Learned, counsel for the claimant argued that the
claimant was 22 years of age on the date of accident. He
was working as mason thereby earning Rs.10,000/ per
month. He sustained multiple injuries on various parts of
body. He was treated in Guru Nanak Hospital, Palwal
and Sheetal Hospital, Palwal where he remained
admitted w.e.f 1.1.2014 to 22.1.2014 and and incurred an
amount of Rs.2,00,000/ on his treatment. However, he
could not retain entire bills. He also suffered loss of
earning and had to undergo the agony of treatment on
account of the accident in question. He has also become
permanently disabled. He could not attend his job for a
period of more than six months. Besides the amount
14 of 34
::: Downloaded on – 14-02-2026 04:02:14 :::
FAO-5927-2015 (O&M) -15-
incurred on his treatment, the claimant also suffered loss
of income. Thus, the claimant is entitled to adequate
compensation.
27. On the other side, the counsel for respondents
argued that the claimant neither sustained any injury in
the accident in question nor spent any amount on his
treatment as alleged. He has procured forged MLR,
discharge card, discharge summary and bills. No
disability has been suffered by him. He did not suffer any
loss of income as alleged. He is not entitled to claim the
amount incurred on the treatment from the respondents.
28. Though, the claimant Mehar Chand has pleaded
that he was working as mason thereby earning
Rs.10,000/ per month, but neither he has placed on file
any document showing his income nor examined any
witness where he did such like work. Therefore, in the
given circumstances, at the most he can be treated as a
labourer, keeping in view his age he was capable enough
to earn his livelihood. The accident occurred on
1.1.2013. In those days, labourer was fetching Rs.5000/
per month approximately. Thus, the income of the
claimant/injured is assessed at Rs.5000/ per month.
29. PW8 Satvir Singh has proved discharge summary
of the injured as Ex.P109 which reveals that he sustained
head injury – SAH right frontal lobe, mild diffuse
cerebral edema withhemorrhagic contusion in right
temporal lobe, fracture anterior of lateral wall of right
manillary, fracture of right zygomatic arch, external
swelling right para orbit region, right segmental, fracture
ulna, fracture DER right, and fracture right shaft raduys.
Thus, keeping in view the nature of injuries, the claimant
15 of 34
::: Downloaded on – 14-02-2026 04:02:14 :::
FAO-5927-2015 (O&M) -16-
must have taken at least three months to recover. In this
way, he is awarded a sum of Rs.15,000/ (Rs.5,000/ X 3)
towards loss of earnings.
30. The petitioner has placed on file disability
certificate on record. Neither the disability certificate has
been tendered in evidence nor any witness has been
summoned to prove the said disability certificate. Merely
placing on file the disability certificate does not serve
any purpose. Therefore, the same cannot be taken into
consideration.
31. To prove the amount incurred on his treatment, the
claimant has examined Surender Singh, recordkeeper,
Balaji Pharmacy, Guru Nanak Hospital, Palwal as PW4
who has proved final bills Ex.P5 to Ex.P100 for
Rs.26,538/, Subhash Chand, Recordkeeper Sheetal
Hospital, Palwal has proved bills Ex.P101 to Ex.P107
for Rs.23,400/ and Satvir Singh Dagar, Record-
keeper/Accountant Guru Nanak Hospital, Palwal has
proved bills Ex.P110 to Ex.P118 for Rs.50,510/. Besides
this the claimant has also placed on file medicine bills
Ex.P120 to Ex.P129 for Rs.5,050/. A perusal of above
bills and receipts reveals that claimant incurred an
amount of Rs.1,05,498/ on his treatment and purchase of
medicines to which he is held entitled.
32. A perusal of discharge summary of Guru Nanak
Hospital, Palwal and the discharge card of Sheetal
Hospital, Palal reveals that the patient Mahesh was
treated for the injuries sustained in the accident in
accident and remained admitted from 1.1.2014 to
2.1.2014. Thus, keeping in view the period of his
admission in the hospital and nature of injuries sustained
16 of 34
::: Downloaded on – 14-02-2026 04:02:14 :::
FAO-5927-2015 (O&M) -17-
by the claimant in the accident in question, he is awarded
a sum of Rs.15,000/ towards pain and suffering. He is
also awarded a sum of Rs.5000/ for transportation and a
sum of Rs.5000/ towards nutritious diet. In this way, the
claimant is awarded the following amount of
compensation for the injuries sustained by him in the
accident in question.
Sr. Head under which
Amount
No. amount Awarded
1. Compensation on account Rs.1,05,498/-
of treatment expenses.
2. Loss of earning Rs. 15,000/
3. Pain and suffering Rs. 15,000/
4. Compensation on account Rs. 5,000/
of transportation
5. Compensation on account Rs. 5,000/
of special diet
TOTAL Rs.1,45,498/-
33. Thus, the claimant is held entitled to a total
compensation of Rs.1,45,498 (Rs. One lac forty five
thousand four hundred and ninety eight only) on account
of injuries sustained by him in the accident in question.
In Claim Petition no.RBT 9 of 2014/2015 titled Daya
Chand and another Versus Satya Parkash and others:
34. Learned counsel for the claimants argued that
deceased was 20 years of age on the date of accident. He
was studying in 12th class and also giving tuitions to the
students thereby earning Rs.9,000/ per month. The
claimants being parents of the deceased were entirely
17 of 34
::: Downloaded on – 14-02-2026 04:02:14 :::
FAO-5927-2015 (O&M) -18-
dependent upon his income. The claimants have lost their
beloved son in the accident in question. The untimely
death of deceased Inderjeet has brought the claimants at
the verge of starvation with no source of their livelihood.
No amount can compensate the loss of life, still the
complainants needs adequate compensation for their
survival.
35. On the other hand, learned counsel for the
respondents argued that Inderjeet (since deceased) did
not suffer any injury in the accident in question. He was
a labourer and was not earning more than Rs.4000/ per
month. The claimants have procured forged PMR of the
deceased just to extract compensation. They have not
even produced any witness to prove that he was giving
tuitions to the students thereby earning Rs.9000/ per
month as alleged. Therefore, they are not liable to any
amount of compensation.
36. So far as age of the deceased is concerned, in para
no.3 of the petition, the claimants have mentioned his age
as 20 years. The claimants have produced on file copy of
post mortem report of Inderjeet as Ex.P119 which also
reveals that Inderjeet was 20 years of age at the time of
his death. Thus, keeping in view the material available on
file, the age of the deceased is assessed as 20 years.
37. To prove the income of the deceased, claimant no.1
Daya Chand, father of deceased Inderjeet, when
appeared in the witness box as PW7 has stated that the
deceased Inderjeet was a student of 12th class at Brij
Mandal School, village Khambi and was also giving
tuitions to the students thereby earning Rs.9,000/ per
month. The claimants have not placed on file any
18 of 34
::: Downloaded on – 14-02-2026 04:02:14 :::
FAO-5927-2015 (O&M) -19-
document with regard to his income from tuition. They
have even not produced any witness to prove that he was
giving tuitions to the students. However, he being 20
years of age was capable enough to earn his livelihood.
The accident in question took place on 1.1.2014. A
labourer in those days was at least fetching Rs.5000/ per
month approximately. Thus, the income of the deceased is
determined as Rs.5000/ per month.
38. In this case, the deceased died at the age of 20
years. Therefore, in view of law laid down by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court of India in cases titled Smt. Sarla Verma
(supra) and Santosh Devi (supra), the claimants are
entitled to an increase of 50% in the income of the
deceased which comes to be Rs.2500/ per month. In this
way, total income of the deceased comes to Rs.7500/ per
month or Rs.90,000/ per annum.
39. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Sarla
Verma’case (supra) has further held that :
“where the deceased was a bachelor and the
claimants are the parents, the deduction follows a
different principle. In regard to bachelors,
normally, 50 per cent is deducted as personal and
living expenses, because it is assumed that a
bachelor would tend to spend more on himself.
Even otherwise, there is also the possibility of his
getting married in a short time, in which event the
contribution to the parent(s) and siblings is likely
to be cut drastically. Thus, 50 per cent would be
treated as the personal and living expenses of the
bachelor and 50 per cent as the contribution to the
family.”
19 of 34
::: Downloaded on – 14-02-2026 04:02:14 :::
FAO-5927-2015 (O&M) -20-
40. Therefore, as discussed above in view of law laid
down in Sarla Verma’s case (supra) the contribution of
deceased towards the family is to be considered as 50%.
Thus, the contribution of the deceased towards his family
comes to Rs.45,000/ per annum.
41. Now, the next question arises for consideration is
whether the multiplier is to be applied in respect of the
age of the deceased or the claimants. The similar matter
came before the Hon’ble High Court of Punjab &
Haryana at Chandigarh in FAO No. 2618 of 2011
(O&M) titled Savitri and another Vs. Rejender and
another decided on 14.02.2012 wherein the Hon’ble
High Court has observed that :
“With utmost respect, case of Shakti Devi (supra)
is decided on 09.11.2010 and the case of
P.S.Somanathan and others (supra) is decided on
17.02.2011 reiterating the view expressed in the
case of Smt. Sarla Verma and others (Supra) taken
on 15.04.2009 wherein it has been held that the
multiplier has to be applied keeping in view the
age of the deceased.
Interestingly all the decisions of the Supreme Court
are rendered by the Bench of Hon’ble two Judges.
Since the view in the case of Smt. Sarla Verma and
others (supra) has been reiterated by the Supreme
Court in the case of P.S.Somanathan and others
(supra) even after the decision in the case of Shakti
Devi (supra), therefore, I am inclined to take the
view expressed in the case of Smt. Sarla Verma and
others (supra) and P.S.Somanathan and others
(supra) to hold that the multiplier has to be20 of 34
::: Downloaded on – 14-02-2026 04:02:15 :::
FAO-5927-2015 (O&M) -21-
applied by the Tribunal in respect of the age of the
deceased and not of the claimant”.
42. Coming to the facts of this case, the age of
deceased was around 20 years at the time of accident.
Therefore, keeping in view the law laid down by Hon’ble
Supreme Court of India, in Sarla Verma’s case (supra),
P.S.Somanathan and others’s case (supra) and law laid
down by Hon’ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana at
Chandigarh in Savitri and another‘s case (supra), the
multiplier of 18 is to be applied in this case considering
the age of deceased. Accordingly, the claimants are
entitled to compensation of Rs.8,10,000/ (Rs.45,000/ X
18).
43. The claimants are also awarded a sum of
Rs.10,000/ on account of transportation, funeral and last
rites of the deceased Amrish.
44. In this way, claimants are awarded a compensation
mentioned below :
Sr. Head under which amount Amount
No. awarded
1. Loss of dependency : Rs.8,10,000.00
2. Expenses incurred on : Rs. 10,000.00
Transportation, funeral and last
rites.
TOTAL : Rs.8,20,000.00
45. Thus, claimants are held entitled to a total
compensation of Rs.8,20,000/ (Rs. Eight Lacs and Twenty
Thousand only).
46. So far as the liability to pay the amount of
compensation is concerned, the petitioner has placed on
record copy of driving licence of respondent no.1 as
21 of 34
::: Downloaded on – 14-02-2026 04:02:15 :::
FAO-5927-2015 (O&M) -22-
Ex.P1 which was issued on 24.12.2009 and was valid
upto 23.12.2014 for driving motorcycle, motorcar and
tractor only. The accident took place on 1.1.2014. Thus,
it stands proved that on the date of accident, respondent
no.1 was holding a valid and effective driving licence to
drive the vehicle in question. A perusal of copy of
registration certificate of the offending vehicle Ex.P2
shows that it was registered in the name of respondent
no.2 and was insured with respondent no.3 as reflected in
insurance policy Ex.R1. Thus, respondents no.1 to 3
being the driver, owner and insurer of the offending
vehicle are jointly and severally liable to pay the amount
of compensation. Thus, issue no.2 is decided in favour of
the claimants and issues no.3 is decided against
respondent no.3.”
13. A perusal of the impugned award reveals that the learned
Tribunal has rightly appreciated the oral as well as documentary evidence
available on record and has returned a well-reasoned finding that the
accident in question occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the
offending tractor-trolley bearing registration No. HR-38S-5957 by
respondent No.1 (driver) of the offending tractor-trolley.
14. It is evident from the record that the accident occurred on
01.01.2014 and the FIR was promptly registered on the basis of the
statement of the eye-witness Satbir Singh, who had witnessed the
occurrence in its entirety. A perusal of the contents of the FIR clearly
reflects that the accident was caused due to the sole negligence of the driver
of the offending vehicle. The prompt registration of the FIR lends further
22 of 34
::: Downloaded on – 14-02-2026 04:02:15 :::
FAO-5927-2015 (O&M) -23-
credibility to the prosecution version and rules out any possibility of
embellishment or afterthought.
15. The eye-witness Satbir Singh was examined as PW-3, who
categorically deposed about the complete sequence of events leading to the
accident. He specifically asserted that the tractor-trolley was being driven in
a rash and negligent manner and that the same struck the motorcycle,
resulting in fatal injuries to the deceased and injuries to the claimant.
Despite being subjected to lengthy cross-examination, nothing material
could be elicited to discredit his testimony. His evidence, therefore, inspires
confidence and remains unimpeached.
16. Further, PW-2 Jai Kishan, Ahlmad from the criminal court,
testified that respondent No.1 is facing trial in connection with the accident
and that the challan has already been presented against him. It is well-
settled that once an FIR has been registered and a charge-sheet has been
filed against the driver of the offending vehicle, the same constitutes prima
facie evidence of negligent driving, unless rebutted by cogent and
convincing evidence. Notably, respondent No.1 failed to step into the
witness box to rebut the evidence led by the claimants, thereby inviting an
adverse inference against him.
17. As regards the contention raised by the learned counsel for the
appellant-Insurance Company that the accident occurred due to contributory
negligence on the part of the deceased motorcycle rider on the ground that
23 of 34
::: Downloaded on – 14-02-2026 04:02:15 :::
FAO-5927-2015 (O&M) -24-
three persons were riding the motorcycle, the said argument is wholly
devoid of merit.
18. It is pertinent to note that the plea of contributory negligence
has been raised for the first time in appeal and was neither pleaded nor
urged before the learned Tribunal. Consequently, no issue on contributory
negligence was framed. In the absence of pleadings and a specific issue,
any finding or reduction of compensation on that ground is legally
untenable. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in M. Nithya & Ors. v. SBI
General Insurance Co. Ltd. SLP© NOS.833-834 OF 2023 has
unequivocally held that where no issue on contributory negligence is
framed, neither the Tribunal nor the appellate court can reduce
compensation on that basis.
19. Even otherwise, the doctrine of contributory negligence
requires a clear, specific, and affirmative finding regarding the negligent
conduct of the injured or deceased and the manner in which such conduct
contributed to the occurrence of the accident. Negligence cannot be
presumed merely on conjectures or surmises. In the present case, there is a
complete absence of any evidence demonstrating that the deceased
committed any negligent act which contributed to the accident.
20. In view of the foregoing discussion and the settled legal
position, the findings recorded by the learned Tribunal on the issue of rash
and negligent driving are sound, justified, and based on proper appreciation
24 of 34
::: Downloaded on – 14-02-2026 04:02:15 :::
FAO-5927-2015 (O&M) -25-
of evidence. The same do not call for any interference and are, accordingly,
affirmed.
21. Adverting now to the second limb of the argument advanced
on behalf of the appellant-Insurance Company, namely that the quantum of
compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal is on the higher side, the
same is examined hereunder.
22. From a perusal of the record, it transpires that the learned
Tribunal has correctly assessed the monthly income of the deceased by
taking into consideration the prevailing minimum wages. No infirmity or
perversity is found on this count, warranting interference by this Court.
23. It further emerges from the record that the deceased was aged
about 19 years at the time of the accident. The learned Tribunal has,
therefore, rightly applied the multiplier of 18, which is in consonance with
the settled principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court.
24. However, it is evident that the learned Tribunal has erred in
awarding future prospects at the rate of 50%. In view of the law laid down
in National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi and subsequent
judgments, the appropriate addition towards future prospects in the present
case ought to have been 40% and not 50%.
25. It is also borne out from the record that the amounts awarded
under the conventional heads, namely funeral expenses, loss of estate, and
loss of consortium, are not in conformity with the settled parameters laid
down by the Hon’ble Apex Court and, therefore, call for appropriate
25 of 34
::: Downloaded on – 14-02-2026 04:02:15 :::
FAO-5927-2015 (O&M) -26-
modification.
26. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the compensation is liable
to be recalculated as under:
Sr. Heads Compensation Awarded
No.
1 Monthly Income Rs.5,000/-
2 Future Prospects @ 40 Rs.2,000/- (40% of 5,000)
3 Deduction towards personal Rs.3500/- (7,000 X 1/2)
expenditure 1/2
4 Total Income Rs.3500/- (7,000 - 3500)
5 Annual Income Rs.42,000/- (3500 X 12)
6 Multiplier 18
7 Annual Dependency Rs.756000/- (42000 X 18)
8 Loss of Estate Rs.15,000/-
9 Funeral Expenses Rs.15,000/-
10 Loss of Consortium Rs.80,000/-
Parental : Rs.40,000/- x 2
11 Total Compensation Rs.8,66,000/-
12 Amount Awarded by the Rs.8,20,000/-
Tribunal
13 Enhanced amount Rs.46000/-
(Rs. 8,66,000 - Rs.8,20,000)
ENHANCEMENT OF THE AWARD IN THE ABSENCE OF CROSS-
OBJECTION IN THE APPEAL
27. The aforesaid re-computation gives rise to a further issue, i.e.
whether the award passed by the Tribunal can be enhanced in an
26 of 34
::: Downloaded on – 14-02-2026 04:02:15 :::
FAO-5927-2015 (O&M) -27-
appeal preferred by the insurance company, when the claimants have
not filed any cross-objection or cross-appeal.
28. This question came up for consideration before three-Judge
Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Surekha & Ors. v. Santosh &
Ors., (2021) 16 SCC 467. The relevant portion of the said order reads as
follows:
1. Leave granted. This appeal takes exception to
the judgment and order dated 4-1-2019 [Shriram General
Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Surekha, 2019 SCC OnLine Bom 12]
passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Bench at
Aurangabad in First Appeal No. 2564 of 2016, whereby the
High Court, even though agreed with the stand of the
appellants that just compensation amount ought to be Rs
49,85,376 (Rupees forty-nine lakhs eighty-five thousand
three hundred seventy-six only), however, declined to grant
enhancement merely on the ground that the appellants had
failed to file cross-appeal.
2. By now, it is well-settled that in the matter of insurance
claim compensation in reference to the motor accident, the
court should not take hypertechnical approach and ensure
that just compensation is awarded to the affected person or
the claimants.
3. As a result, we modify the order passed by the High
Court to the effect that the compensation amount payable to
the appellants is determined at Rs 49,85,376 (Rupees forty-
nine lakhs eighty-five thousand three hundred seventy-six
only), with interest thereon as awarded by the High Court.
4. The appeal is allowed in the above terms. Pending
applications, if any, stand disposed of.”
27 of 34
::: Downloaded on - 14-02-2026 04:02:15 :::
FAO-5927-2015 (O&M) -28-
29. In view of the above, settled principles of law as held by Apex
Court this Court can award just and reasonable compensation by
enhancing the amount of compensation, even in the absence of a cross-
objection or cross-appeal by the claimants.
30. This conclusion is further strengthened by the settled principle
that a Court adjudicating claims under the Motor Vehicles Act is duty-
bound to award just and fair compensation to victims of road accidents,
unrestrained by strict rules of pleadings and evidence, as laid down by the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in Nagappa v. Gurudayal Singh & Ors
(2003)2SCC 274.
31. Furthermore, this Court in FAO-5834-2016 titled as The
Oriental Insurance Company Limited Vs. Smt. Mathri Devi and
others decided on 12.09.2025 has already dealt with similar issue and
held as under:-
“This Court in FAO-195-2006, titled Mamata and
others v. Happy and others, decided on 29.05.2024, while examining
the scope of the appellate jurisdiction under Section 107 CPC read with
Order XLI Rule 33 CPC, has held as follows:-
“11. RELEVANT PROVISONS UNDER THE CODE OF
CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908
Section 107 :- Powers of Appellate Court.– (1) Subject
to such conditions and limitations as may be prescribed,
an Appellate Court shall have power–
(a) to determine a case finally;
28 of 34
::: Downloaded on – 14-02-2026 04:02:15 :::
FAO-5927-2015 (O&M) -29-
(b) to remand a case;
(c) to frame issues and refer them for trial;
(d) to take additional evidence or to require such
evidence to be taken.
(2) Subject as aforesaid, the Appellate Court shall have
the same powers and shall perform as nearly as may be
the same duties as are conferred and imposed by this
Code on Courts of original jurisdiction in respect of suits
instituted therein.
Order XLI Rule 33 of the Code of Civil Procedure,
1908:-
33. Power of Court of Appeal.–The Appellate Court
shall have power to pass any decree and make any order
which ought to have been passed or made and to pass or
make such further or other decree or order as the case
may require, and this power may be exercised by the
Court notwithstanding that the appeal is as to part only
of the decree and may be exercised in favour of all or any
of the respondents or parties, although such respondents
or parties may not have filed any appeal or objection and
may, where there have been decrees in cross-suits or
where two or more decrees are passed in one suit be
exercised in respect of all or any of the decrees, although
an appeal may not have been filed against such decrees:
[Provided that the Appellate Court shall not make any
order under section 35A in pursuance of any objection on
which the Court from whose decree the appeal is
preferred has omitted or refused to make such order.]
12 to 18 XXX XXX XXX
19. As per Section 107 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
which refers to the powers of the Appellate Court, the Appellate
29 of 34
::: Downloaded on – 14-02-2026 04:02:15 :::
FAO-5927-2015 (O&M) -30-
Court shall have the same powers and shall perform as nearly
as may be the same duties as are conferred and imposed by the
Code on Courts of original jurisdiction in respect of suits
instituted therein, and the Motor Vehicle Act 1988 since being a
beneficial legislation, the evidence led by the parties cannot be
ignored by the Appellate Authority.
20 to 25 XXX XXX XXX
CONCLUSION
26. The Appellate Courts for the purpose of doing complete
justice between the parties and completely adjudicating upon
all the disputes, after appreciating the whole evidence on
record, have power under Section 107 read with Order XLI
Rule 33 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 to pass any decree
and make any order which ought to have been passed or made
and to pass or make such further decree or order as the case
may require, and this power may be exercised by the Court
notwithstanding that the appeal is as to part only of the decree
and may be exercised in favour of all or any of the respondents
or parties, although such respondents or parties may not have
filed any appeal or objection.
27. Motor vehicle statute is a beneficial legislation.
Generally the victims/claimants/legal-representatives are not
aware of their right to compensation and it is Advocates who
decide under which provision of the statute the claim petition is
to be filed. Before deciding the claim petitions, after
appreciating the evidence on record, it is the bounden duty of
the Court to apprise the parties of their legal rights as to under
which provision they can get the maximum of
benefit/compensation. The Judges should apply their judicial
mind after appreciating the evidence on record, gravity of
offence, gravity of loss, conduct of parties and over all facts
30 of 34
::: Downloaded on – 14-02-2026 04:02:15 :::
FAO-5927-2015 (O&M) -31-
and circumstances of each case and after that decide the same.
The Court should not go into the technicalities that under which
provision of statute case is to be filed, specially in the motor
accident cases. If at any stage after appreciating the evidence,
since it is original jurisdiction of the Court and the case is at
initial stage, normally a person of ordinary prudence can
calculate the loss of near and dear one’s/relationship, the Judge
feels that case of the claimant falls under a particular section
he should apprise the parties regarding the same. The Courts
should not apply straight jacket formula in every case and are
presumed actually to do the justice by applying their judicial
mind to the facts and circumstances of each and every case. The
beneficial intent of the legislation ought to be borne in mind
and procedural and technical formalities cannot be invoked to
defeat the purpose of the legislation.
28. The Courts have to be very cautious and careful while
accepting the prayer of the claimants/appellants to convert the
claim petition filed under Section I63-A to Section 166 of the
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Under Section 107 read with Order
XLI Rule 33 of CPC the general rule is that an appeal is
persistence of a suit and, therefore, an Appellate Court can do,
while the appeal is pending, what the original Court could have
done while the suit was pending. Thus, as per Section 107
Order XLI Rule 33 of CPC, an Appellate Court is empowered to
re-appreciate the evidence. While hearing the appeal it is very
important for a judge to apply his judicial mind. The Appellate
Authority can re-appreciate the evidence before it. The grant of
just and fair compensation is a statutory responsibility of the
Court.
29. Over all conclusion of the above is that the Appellate
Court has power to convert the petition under Section 163-A to
31 of 34
::: Downloaded on – 14-02-2026 04:02:15 :::
FAO-5927-2015 (O&M) -32-
Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 to give justice to
the claimants.”
13. It is manifest from the above discussion that
although respondents/claimants No.1 and 2 have not preferred
any appeal seeking enhancement of compensation, and the
present appeal has been instituted solely by the appellant-
Insurance Company challenging the quantum of compensation,
the settled principle of law is that an appeal is a continuation of
the original proceedings. Consequently, the appellate court is
vested with ample jurisdiction to mould relief and to award just
and proper compensation, even in the absence of a cross-appeal
by the claimants.
14. In exercise of such appellate powers, this Court
cannot overlook the beneficial nature of the Motor Vehicles Act,
1988, which has been consistently interpreted as a piece of
social welfare legislation intended to provide just compensation
to victims of motor accidents and their dependents. The
statutory duty of the Court is to ensure that the claimants are
not deprived of legitimate entitlement merely due to procedural
technicalities such as the absence of a cross-appeal.
15. Accordingly, in the interest of justice, and to secure
the ends of a fair adjudication, this Court deems it appropriate
32 of 34
::: Downloaded on – 14-02-2026 04:02:15 :::
FAO-5927-2015 (O&M) -33-
to award a further sum of ₹18,150/- under the head “Loss of
Estate” in favour of respondents/claimants No.1 and 2.
16. It is well settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in
K. Ramya v. National Insurance Co. Ltd., 2022 (4) RCR
(Civil) 435 that the Motor Accident Claims Tribunals are
vested with latitude to determine “just compensation” and are
not shackled by rigid arithmetical rules or strict standards of
evidence as in civil suits for damages. Interference by the
Appellate Court is warranted only when the award of
compensation is manifestly excessive, arbitrary, or contrary to
settled principles.”
32. So far as the interest part is concerned, as held by Hon’ble
Supreme Court in Dara Singh @ Dhara Banjara Vs. Shyam Singh
Varma 2019 ACJ 3176 and R.Valli and Others VS. Tamil Nandu State
Transport Corporation (2022) 5 Supreme Court Cases 107, the
appellants-claimants are granted the interest @ 9% per annum on the
enhanced amount from the date of filing of claim petition till the date of its
realization.
33. The appellant-Insurance Company is directed to deposit the
enhanced amount of compensation alongwith interest with the Tribunal
within a period of two months from today. The Tribunal is further directed to
disburse the enhanced amount of compensation alongwith interest in the
account of the claimants/respondents No.1 and 2 as per the ratio settled in
33 of 34
::: Downloaded on – 14-02-2026 04:02:15 :::
FAO-5927-2015 (O&M) -34-
the award dated 07.07.2017. The claimants/respondents No.1 and 2 are
directed to furnish their bank account details to the Tribunal.
34. Consequently, the present appeal, being devoid of merits,
stands dismissed.
35. The statutory amount of Rs.25,000/- deposited by the appellant
at the time of admission of the appeal, is ordered to be refunded to it.
36. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.
(SUDEEPTI SHARMA)
JUDGE
31.01.2026
Virender
Whether speaking/non-speaking : Speaking
Whether reportable : Yes/No
34 of 34
::: Downloaded on – 14-02-2026 04:02:15 :::