Punjab-Haryana High Court
Oriental Insurance Co Ltd vs Anvari And Ors on 27 April, 2026
Author: Sudeepti Sharma
Bench: Sudeepti Sharma
1
FAO-8471-2015 (O&M)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
FAO-8471-2015 (O&M)
ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. ......Appellant
vs.
ANVARI AND ORS. ......Respondents
Reserved on : 21.04.2026
Pronounced on: 27.04.2026
Uploaded on: 04.05.2026
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. Sahej Mahajan, Advocate
for the appellants.
Mr. R.S. Mamli, Advocate
for respondent Nos.1 to 5.
Respondent Nos.6 to 9 were proceeded against ex parte
vide order dated 18.04.2017.
****
SUDEEPTI SHARMA J.
1. The present appeal has been filed by the appellant-Insurance
company against the award dated 11.08.2015 passed in a claim petition filed
under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 by the Motor Accident
Claims Tribunal, Kurukshetra (for short, ‘the Tribunal’), wherein the appellant-
Insurance company was fastened with the liability to pay the compensation of
Rs.28,75,080/- to the claimants along with interest @ 9 % per annum from the
date of filing of claim petition till recovery.
BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE
2. The brief facts of the case are that on dated 2.4.2015, above named
Rahamdeen (since deceased) was travelling as pillion rider on a motorcycle
MOHD AYUB
2026.05.04 14:22
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/judgment.
2
FAO-8471-2015 (O&M)
bearing registration no.HR-07L-1332 being driven by his brother Rafiqdeen
and they were going from their village Jharauli Kalan to village Mustfabad,
District Yamuna Nagar and at about 8.00 P.M. they reached just one kilometer
short of village Kalsani in front of Dera of one Inderjit Singh, Numberdar,
where the respondent no.1 had parked his tractor bearing registration no.HR-
78-8910 in the middle of the road without giving any indicator etc. and due to
that reason the motor-cycle being driven by said Rafiqdeen struck against the
stationary tractor in its back side and as a result of which, both the occupants of
the motor-cycle fell down on the road alongwith the motor-cycle and
Rahamdeen suffered serious and grievous injuries on his person. It is further
asserted that the respondent no.1 then alighted from the tractor and came near
Rahamdeen and Rafiqdeen for a while but lateron he fled away from the spot
by taking advantage of crowd. It is further asserted that the injured Rahamdeen
was taken to CHC, Shahabad, where he was declared dead by the doctors and
consequently FIR No.144 dated 3.4.2015, under sections 283, 304-A IPC was
registered at Police Station, Shahabad against respondent no.1. According to
the claimants-petitioners, the said Rahamdeen, at time of his death, was aged
about 35 years and was working as driver and also doing dairy farming and was
thus earning ₹30,000/- per month. It is further asserted that the postmortem on
the dead body of said Rahamdeen was conducted at LNJP Hospital,
Kurukshetra and a sum of ₹70,000/- was spent on treatment, medicines,
attendant charges, transportation and last rites of deceased. It is further asserted
that due to the untimely death of said Rahamdeen, the claimants petitioners
have lost their only bread earner and whole of the family has crippled. In this
MOHD AYUB
2026.05.04 14:22
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/judgment.
3
FAO-8471-2015 (O&M)
way, the claimants-petitioners have claimed the above mentioned amount as of
compensation from the respondents.
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 framed the
following issues:-
“1. Whether accident dated 2.4.2015, resulting into death of
Rahamdeen took place due to rash and negligent act of the
respondent no.1 while he parked the tractor bearing
registration no.HR-78-8910 in the middle of the road
without giving any indicator etc. if so, to what effect? OPP
2. If issue no.1 is proved, then to what amount of
compensation and from whom the claimants-petitioners are
entitled to? OPP
3. Whether the respondent no.1 was not having any valid
and effective driving licence at the material time and there
was violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance
policy and respondent no.3 is not liable to pay any
compensation? OPR-3.
4. Relief.”
5. After taking into consideration the pleadings and the evidence on
record, the learned Tribunal awarded compensation to the claimants. However,
liability to pay the compensation was fastened upon the appellant-Insurance
Company. Hence, the present appeal.
SUBMISSIONS OF LEARNED COUNSELS FOR THE PARTIES
6. Learned counsel for the appellant/Insurance Company contends as
under:-
MOHD AYUB
2026.05.04 14:22
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/judgment.
4
FAO-8471-2015 (O&M)
i. That learned Tribunal has erred in holding that accident occurred
due to rash and negligent driving of respondent No.8-driver of offending
vehicle;
ii. That the accident in fact occurred due to contributory negligence
of both vehicle.
iii. That eye witness of the accident stated that he took the deceased to
the hospital, however, name of eye witness was not mentioned in the post
mortem report.
iv. That income of deceased was taken on higher side. And submits
that the Tribunal has erred in assessing the monthly income of the
deceased at Rs.10,200/- by placing reliance upon the wage notification
issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Kurukshetra, applicable to skilled
labour instead of adopting the minimum wages for skilled labour in the
State of Haryana.
v. That learned Tribunal has erred in taking the age of deceased from
post mortem report. And that learned Tribunal has erred in awarding
compensation under the heads of loss of care and guidance and loss of
consortium, which is contrary to the settled proposition of law.
vi. That the driver of offending vehicle-respondent No.8, was not
holding valid and effective driving licence to drive the offending vehicle
at the time of the accident.
vii. That the driving licence of the said driver did not bear the requisite
endorsement for driving a transport vehicle.
7. Accordingly, he prays that the present appeal be allowed.
MOHD AYUB
2026.05.04 14:22
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/judgment.
5
FAO-8471-2015 (O&M)
8. Per contra, learned counsel for respondents No.1 to 5/claimants
contends as under:-
i. That learned Tribunal has rightly held that accident occurred due
to sole negligence of respondent No.8-driver of offending vehicle.
ii. That learned Tribunal has rightly decided the issue of liability.
iii. That the compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal is on
lower side and claimants/respondent Nos.1 to 5 has filed separate appeal
i.e. FAO-8471-2015, titled as Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Vs.
Anvari and others seeking enhancement of compensation. He, therefore,
prays that the present appeal be dismissed.
9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the file
with their able assistance.
10. The relevant portion of the award is reproduced as under:-
“Issues No.1 to 3:
8. The claimants-petitioners by way of the instant petition
have prayed for grant of compensation of an amount of ₹60
lakhs alongwith interest etc. from the respondents on
account of death of their relative namely Rahamdeen in a
motor vehicle accident due to the alleged rash and negligent
parking a motor vehicle i.e. tractor bearing registration
no.HR-78-8910 by the respondent No.1 Iqbal Singh. It is
asserted by the claimants-petitioners that due to the reason
of an untimely death of said Rahamdeen, they have lost their
only bread earner and their life has been ruined.
9. Now so far as question of rash and negligent parking of
vehicle bearing registration no. HR-78-8910 by the
respondent no.1 is concerned, Rafiqdeen, the alleged eye
witness of the accident in question stepped into the witness
box as PW1 and has reiterated the averments as made by
MOHD AYUB
2026.05.04 14:22
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/judgment.
6
FAO-8471-2015 (O&M)
the claimants-petitioners in their claim-petition so jointly
filed on their behalf and deposed that the accident in
question took place due to sole rash and negligent parking
of tractor bearing registration no.HR-78- 8910 in the middle
of the road by respondent no.1 Iqbal Singh. The claimants-
petitioners besides proving on the file copy of FIR No.144
dated 3.4.2015, Police Station, Shahabad as Ex.P1 have
also proved on the file certified copy of final report under
section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure as Ex.P3, so
presented before the concerned Court in case FIR No.144
dated 3.4.2015, under sections 283, 304-A IPC, Police
Station, Shahabad registered against respondent No.1 Iqbal
Singh, the driver of the offending vehicle i.e. tractor bearing
registration no.HR-78- 8910 meaning thereby that the
respondent No.1 is facing trial before the concerned Court,
in the above mentioned case and under the aforesaid
sections. The aforesaid evidence, oral as well as
documentary, so brought on the file is sufficient enough to
conclude that the accident in question took place due to rash
and negligent parking of the offending vehicle bearing
registration no. HR-78-8910 by respondent No.1 and in the
said accident said Rahamdeen died due to the injuries
received by him. Support in this regard can be taken from
the law laid down by the Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High
Court in case titled as Girdhari Lal versus Radhay Shyam,
1993(2) P.L.R. 109 and Gurdeep Kaur versus Tarsem Singh,
2008(2) R.C.R. (civil) 774. 10. Now in order to decide as to
whether the respondent no.1 was having a valid driving
licence at the time of alleged accident is concerned, to prove
this fact, the respondent no.1 has tendered into evidence
copy of his driving licence bearing No.HR-0719950049491
as Ex.R2 which is issued by the Licencing Authority (MV),
Thanesar, Kurukshetra for driving M/cycle-WG, LMV-NT,
MOHD AYUB
2026.05.04 14:22
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/judgment.
7
FAO-8471-2015 (O&M)
LMV-Tractor only and the same is valid upto 26.08.2024.
The respondent no.3 insurance company has not led any
evidence on the file whereby disputing the fact of validness
of the aforesaid driving licence, Ex.R2, so issued in favour
of respondent no.1 by the Licencing Authority, Thanesar and
as such it can be safely concluded that the respondent no.1
driver was holding a valid driving licence at the time of
alleged accident. 11. Now coming to the point as to what
amount of compensation the claimants-petitioners are
entitled to. The claimant-petitioner no.1 Smt. Anvari stepped
into the witness box as PW2 has deposed that her husband
Rahamdeen, who died due to the injuries suffered by him in
a motor vehicle accident, at the time of his death, was
working as a driver and also doing dairy farming and was
thus earning 30,000/- per month and ₹ the claimants-
petitioners were dependent upon the income of deceased
Rahamdeen. In her cross-examination, she has admitted that
she has no record regarding the income and profession of
her deceased husband. In the absence of any cogent or
convincing evidence regarding proof of the income of said
Rahamdeen, the monthly income of said Rahamdeen, as per
orders dated 20.2.2015 passed by the Deputy Commissioner,
Kurukshetra relating to the pay and wages of the employees
for the period 01.03.2015 to 29.02.2016, can be assessed at
₹10200/- per month to be that of a casual labourer. PW2
Anvari has stated that deceased Rahamdeen was 35 years of
age at the time of his death and so is the age recorded in the
copy of postmortem report, so proved on the file as Ex.P2
and as such the age of deceased Rahamdeen in the absence
of any other proof at the time of his death is taken as 35
years. Now so far as question of grant of future prospects is
concerned, in case titled as Rajesh and others versus Rajbir
MOHD AYUB
2026.05.04 14:22
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/judgment.
8
FAO-8471-2015 (O&M)
Singh and others 2013 ACJ 1403 (S.C.), it has been
observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India that:
“in the case of self employed or persons with fixed
wages, in case of deceased victim was below 40 years,
there must be an addition of 50 percent to the actual
income of the deceased while computing future
prospects.”
In view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex
Court, the income of deceased Rahamdeen , while
considering him of the age of 35 years at the time of his
death, shall be ₹15,300/- (₹10200/- +₹5100/- i.e. 50%) per
month. Now so far as contribution of deceased Rahamdeen
towards his family is concerned, the said Rahamdeen, has
left behind his widow, i.e. the claimant-petitioner no.1, one
son, i.e. the claimantpetitioner no.2, three daughters, i.e. the
claimants-petitioners no. 3 to 5 and his parents, i.e. the
claimants-petitioners no.6 and 7. So, while taking support
from the case titled as Smt. Sarla Verma and others versus
Delhi Transport Corporation and another 2009(3) Recent
Civil Reports page 77 (S.C.), one fifth of the total income i.e.
₹3060/- is to be deducted as personal and living expenses of
the said Rahamdeen deceased. While taking into
consideration the aforesaid facts, the contribution of the
deceased Rahamdeen towards his family comes to be
₹12,240/- per month. Now while taking into consideration
age of said Rahamdeen as 35 years, the suitable multiplier
shall be that of 16. Thus, the amount of compensation comes
to be ₹23,50,080/- (12240x12x16= ₹23,50,080/-). The
claimant-petitioner no.1 is also awarded a sum of
₹1,00,000/- for loss of consortium. The claimants-petitioners
are further awarded a sum of ₹25,000/- towards
transportation and funeral expenses. The claimants-
petitioners no. 2 to 5 are also awarded a sum of ₹1,00,000/-
MOHD AYUB
2026.05.04 14:22
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/judgment.
9
FAO-8471-2015 (O&M)
each as of loss of care and guidance for minor child. So, the
total amount of compensation comes to ₹28,75,080/-. Hence,
all these issues are decided accordingly.”
11. A perusal of award reveals that the findings recorded by the
learned Tribunal do not suffer from any infirmity, much less perversity,
warranting interference by this Court.
12. A perusal of the impugned award would reveal that learned
Tribunal has undertaken a proper appreciation of both oral as well as
documentary evidence available on record. The testimony of PW-1 Rafiqdeen,
who is an eye-witness to the occurrence, inspires confidence and has remained
unshaken on material particulars. He has categorically deposed that the
offending vehicle, i.e. tractor bearing registration No. HR-78-8910, was parked
in the middle of the road in negligent manner by respondent No.8-Iqbal Singh,
which directly resulted in the accident leading to the death of Rahamdeen.
Nothing substantial could be elicited in his cross-examination so as to discredit
his version.
13. The said ocular testimony stands duly corroborated by the
documentary evidence placed on record, including FIR No.144 dated
03.04.2015 (Ex.P-1) and the final report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. (Ex.P3),
wherein respondent No.8 (driver) has been arrayed as an accused for offences
punishable under Sections 283 and 304-A IPC. The pendency of criminal
proceedings against respondent No.8/driver of the offending vehicle further
lends assurance to the case set up by the claimants.
14. In view of the consistent and cogent evidence, the learned Tribunal
has rightly concluded that the accident in question occurred due to the rash and
MOHD AYUB
2026.05.04 14:22
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/judgment.
10
FAO-8471-2015 (O&M)
negligent parking of the offending vehicle by respondent No.8, resulting in the
fatal injuries to the deceased Rahamdeen. The said finding is based on proper
appreciation of evidence and is in consonance with the settled principles of law
laid down by Apex Court, and thus deserves to be affirmed.
15. Coming to the contention raised by learned counsel for the
appellant-Insurance Company that as per the site plan (Ex.P4), the offending
vehicle was parked on the left side of the road and, therefore, negligence
cannot be attributed to the driver, the same is found to be wholly misconceived
and devoid of merit.
16. A careful scrutiny of the site plan (Ex.P4) does not support the
argument advanced on behalf of the Insurance Company. Rather, the site plan
clearly indicates that the offending tractor-trolley was parked in such a manner
that it occupied a substantial portion of the road, virtually towards the middle,
thereby obstructing the free flow of traffic. The manner of its parking, as
depicted in the site plan itself, reinforces the conclusion that the vehicle was
not safely parked on the extreme left side, but was negligently left in a position
hazardous to other road users.
17. Even otherwise, merely describing the position of the vehicle as
being on the “left side” does not ipso facto absolve the driver of negligence,
particularly when the placement is such that it creates a traffic hazard. In the
present case, the evidence on record unmistakably demonstrates that the
offending vehicle was parked in a dangerous manner without taking necessary
precautions, which directly contributed to the occurrence of the accident.
MOHD AYUB
2026.05.04 14:22
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/judgment.
11
FAO-8471-2015 (O&M)
18. Accordingly, the contention raised by the appellant-Insurance
Company is rejected, and the findings of the learned Tribunal on the issue of
rash and negligent parking of the offending vehicle are hereby upheld.
19. Adverting now to the second limb of argument of learned counsel
for the appellant-Insurance Company that the driver of offending
vehicle/respondent No.8 did not possess valid and effective driving licence at
the time of accident is concerned, the same is bereft of merit. A perusal of
Insurance Policy and driving licence reveals that the offending vehicle was a
tractor. As per the record, the gross vehicle weight of the offending vehicle
(tractor) is recorded as around 1650 kilograms, i.e. below 7500 kilograms.
Thus, the vehicle clearly falls within the category of a Light Motor Vehicle.
20. In view of the aforesaid factual position, the finding recorded by
the learned Tribunal that there is no violation of insurance policy is in
consonance with judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court.
21. This Court in FAO-3952-2006, titled as “United India Insurance
Company and others Vs. Manjit Kaur and others“, decided on 07.11.2024,
while relying upon the Constitution Bench judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme
Court in M/s Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Rambha Devi &
Ors., 2024 INSC 840, has held that a driver holding a valid LMV licence is
competent to drive a transport vehicle of that class having a gross vehicle
weight not exceeding 7500 kilograms, without any separate endorsement.
22. In the light of the above discussion and the settled position of law,
the findings of the learned Tribunal holding insurance company liable to pay
compensation is hereby affirmed.
MOHD AYUB
2026.05.04 14:22
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/judgment.
12
FAO-8471-2015 (O&M)
23. Now coming to the contention of learned counsel for appellant-
Insurance company that learned Tribunal has erred in taking age of deceased by
placing reliance on post mortem report and same is also found unsustainable in
the eyes of law. It is settled proposition of law as held by Hon’ble the Supreme
Court in Sunita Vs. Vinod Singh 2025 INSC 366 wherein the Hon’ble Apex
Court held that in absence of material indicating to the contrary, there is no
inhibition to accept the age of deceased as per post mortem report. The relevant
extract of the same is reproduced as under:-
“11. The amount arrived at by the High Court of the
monthly income being Rs. 5,819/- (Rupees Five Thousand
Eight Hundred and Nineteen) as against the claim of Rs.
10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) appears to be on the lower
side as the total earning of the deceased from family pension
itself ought to have been considered which itself would come
to Rs. 5,137/- (Rupees Five Thousand One Hundred and
Thirty-Seven) to which the notional wages as a home maker
had to be added, which we find is reasonable as has been
taken by the High Court at Rs. 2,500/- (Rupees Two
Thousand Five Hundred). Thus, the monthly income would
come to Rs. 7,637/- (Rupees Seven Thousand Six Hundred
and Thirty- Seven), which we are inclined to round off at Rs.
7,000/- (Rupees Seven Thousand). Coming to the multiplier
factor which is dependent on the age, there is sufficient
indication that the deceased was aged about 45 years as per
the Post-Mortem Report which is a scientific assessment of
the age of the deceased. The purported discrepancy in the
age with regard to that of the claimant and the deceased is
erroneous for the reason that when the claim was filed,
appellant no.1 was aged about 30 years and a difference of
15 years between the daughter-in-law and the mother-in-law
cannot be said to be totally devoid of reality given the
MOHD AYUB
2026.05.04 14:22
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/judgment.
13
FAO-8471-2015 (O&M)
contextual and prevalent societal norms in vogue at the time
of marriage of the deceased which could have been at least
25 to 30 years prior to her death i.e., in or about the 1970s.
Moreover, in the absence of material indicating to the
contrary, there is no inhibition to accept the age of the
deceased as per the Post-Mortem Report. Thus, we are
inclined to grant her the benefit of multiplier of 14 taking
her age as 45 years. With regard to the loss of love and
affection, Pranay Sethi (supra) grants Rs. 40,000/- (Rupees
Forty Thousand) per head with escalation of 10% every
three years for loss of consortium which has been
interpreted in Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu
Ram, (2018) 18 SCC 130 to include spousal, parental, and
filial consortium. Thus, there being five claimants the
amount shall be [Rs. 48,000/- x 5] which comes to Rs.
2,40,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs and Forty Thousand) payable
under the head of loss of love and affection.”
24. In view of the above, the learned Tribunal has rightly taken the age
of deceased as 35 years by placing on record post-mortem report (PMR).
25. With regard to the contention raised by learned counsel for the
appellant-Insurance Company that the learned Tribunal has erred in taking
monthly income of deceased by placing on reliance DC rate instead of
minimum wages is concerned same is also bereft of merit. This Court earlier
has already dealt with similar issue in FAO-6751-2017 titled as “National
Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Vimal Kaur and Ors.” decided on 18.12.2025 has held
that income of deceased can be assessed by taking into account the DC rates.
The relevant portion of the same is reproduced as under:-
“6. At the outset, it is apposite to reiterate the well-
settled principle governing appellate jurisdiction. It is triteMOHD AYUB
2026.05.04 14:22
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/judgment.
14
FAO-8471-2015 (O&M)
law that a Court sitting in appeal does not substitute its own
view for that of the Court below merely because an
alternative view is possible. Interference is warranted only
where the impugned findings are vitiated by perversity,
illegality, or material irregularity, or suffer from such
infirmities as render them unsustainable in law. In the
absence of such vitiating factors, interference in appellate
jurisdiction is wholly unwarranted.
7. In the present case, a perusal of the record shows
that the driving licence of the deceased was produced and
exhibited as Ex. R-6. The said licence clearly reflects that
the deceased was authorised to drive heavy and medium
goods vehicles. Thus, the deceased was duly qualified to be
treated as a skilled worker in the category of heavy vehicle
driver.
8. There is nothing on record to demonstrate that the
wage rates notified by the Deputy Commissioner,
Kurukshetra, were not applicable to the deceased. In the
absence of any cogent evidence to the contrary, the learned
Tribunal was justified in relying upon the said notification
while determining the income of the deceased. The approach
adopted by the Tribunal cannot be said to be arbitrary or
erroneous.
9. The aforesaid view also finds support from the
judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Saroj & Ors. v.
IFFCO-Tokio General Insurance Co. & Ors., 2024 INSC
816. The relevant extract of the same is reproduced as
under:-
“5. On appeal to the High Court,
vide judgment and order dated 9th March,
2023 passed in FAO Nos.8504 of 2017
(O&M) and 6836 of 2017 (O&M) the
amount awarded by the MACT was reducedMOHD AYUB
2026.05.04 14:22
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/judgment.
15
FAO-8471-2015 (O&M)
to Rs.9,22,336/- noting that minimum wage
rates issued by the Government are
uniformly applicable throughout the State
and, therefore, constitute a better measure
for calculating the notional income of a
deceased person, as opposed to special DC
rates notified by the Deputy Commissioner
of a District, and, therefore, would only be
applicable to that particular district.
Further, it was observed that with respect to
the age at the time of death, the Aadhar
Card of the deceased records his date of
birth to be 1st January 1969; thus, the age
comes to 47 years. Hence, the multiplier
applicable would be 13.
6. The claimant-appellants,
aggrieved by the reduction, have
approached this Court. Before us, it was
contended that the multiplier applicable
would be 14 since, in the School Leave
Certificate the date of birth of the deceased
is shown as 7th October, 1970. His age,
then at the time of the accident was 45
years. They were further aggrieved by the
calculation of monthly income to be
Rs.5,886/-.
7. Notice was issued on 17th October,
2023. The matter was then sent to Lok
Adalat by way of an order dated 23rd July
2024. A subsequent order dated 2nd August
2024 records that the matter could not be
settled.
MOHD AYUB
2026.05.04 14:22
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/judgment.
16
FAO-8471-2015 (O&M)
8. We have heard the learned counsel
for the parties and also perused the record.
The questions arising for consideration are
– (a) in case of conflict of the dates of birth
between the two documents, as in this case
between the School Leaving Certificate and
the Aadhar Card, which of the two is to be
taken as authoritative; and (b) whether in
the facts of the case, the High Court’s
reduction of the compensation awarded by
the learned MACT, was justified and in
accordance with law?
9. This Court is of the view that the
High Court erred in undertaking the
reduction as it has. The reasons therefore
are recorded in the following paragraphs.
9.1 The general rule insofar as
appellate proceedings are concerned is that
a Court sitting in appeal is not to substitute
its view for that of the Court below. It is
only to see that the decision arrived at is
not afflicted by perversity, illegality or any
other such vice which may compromise it
beyond redemption.
9.2 It is also well settled that an
order is not to be interfered with simply
because another view is possible, which, in
the impugned order the High Court seems
to have done.
9.3 The question before the High
Court was not as to which yardstick to use
to determine the notional income of the
deceased was ‘better’. Since there isMOHD AYUB
2026.05.04 14:22
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/judgment.
17
FAO-8471-2015 (O&M)
nothing on record to establish that the rates
notified by the District Commissioner,
Rohtak, would not apply to the deceased,
we find no reason to interfere with the
finding of the Tribunal. Further, the
testimonies of PWs 2, 5 and 6 show that he
is an agriculturist who owned his own
tractor and a JCB machine.”
10. This Court finds no merit in the contention
raised by the appellant-Insurance Company on the ground
that the learned Tribunal erred in assessing the monthly
income of the deceased at ₹15,680/- by placing reliance
upon the wage notification issued by the Deputy
Commissioner, Kurukshetra, applicable to skilled
labour/heavy vehicle drivers, instead of adopting the
minimum wages for skilled labour in the State of Haryana
i.e. ₹8,245/-.”
26. A perusal of the award further reveals the income of deceased as
assessed by learned Tribunal is on lower side. It transpires from the record that
deceased was stated to be working as a driver and earning Rs.30,000/-.
27. Further, in Chandra @ Chanda @ Chandraram v. Mukesh
Kumar Yadav & Ors., (2022) 1 SCC 198, the Hon’ble Apex Court has held that
mere absence of documentary proof of income does not justify the adoption of
the lowest slab of DC rate, particularly where other material exists on record to
indicate a higher earning capacity.
28. In light of the aforesaid authoritative pronouncements, and having
regard to the facts and circumstances of the case the monthly income of the
deceased is assessed as Rs.12,000/- per month in the interest of justice.
MOHD AYUB
2026.05.04 14:22
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/judgment.
18
FAO-8471-2015 (O&M)
29. A perusal of the record reveals that learned Tribunal has erred in
awarding of 50% future prospects instead of 40% as per settled law.
Furthermore, compensation awarded under the head of loss of consortium is on
higher side and nothing has been awarded under the head of loss of estate.
Therefore, the calculation is rework as under:-
Sr. No. Heads Compensation Awarded
1 Monthly Income Rs.12,000/-
2 Future prospects @ 40% Rs.4,800/- (40% of 12,000)
3 Deduction towards personal Rs.3,360/- (16,800 X 1/5)
expenditure 1/5
4 Total Income Rs.13,440 (16,800-3,360)
5 Multiplier 16
6 Annual Dependency Rs.25,80,480/- (13,440 X 12 X 16)
7 Loss of Estate Rs.15,000/-
8 Funeral Expenses Rs.25,000/-
9 Loss of Consortium Rs.2,80,000/-
Filial : Rs.40,000 x 4
Spousal: Rs.40,000 x 1
Parental: Rs.40,000 x 2
10 Total Compensation Rs.29,00,480/-
11 Deduction Rs.28,75,080/-
Amount Awarded by the Tribunal
12 Enhanced amount Rs.25,400/- (29,00,480-28,75,080)
30. 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 Nadu State Transport
Corporation (2022) 5 Supreme Court Cases 107, the 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.
MOHD AYUB
2026.05.04 14:22
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/judgment.
19
FAO-8471-2015 (O&M)
31. The appellant-Insurance Company is directed to deposit the
enhanced amount of compensation along with interest with the Tribunal within
a period of two months from the receipt of copy of this judgment. The Tribunal
is directed to disburse the enhanced amount of compensation along with
interest in the accounts of the claimants/respondents No.1 to 5, as per ratio
settled by the learned Tribunal, vide its award dated 11.08.2015. The
claimants/respondents No.1 to 5 are directed to furnish their bank account
details to the Tribunal.
32. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed being devoid of any merit.
33. All the pending application(s) also stand disposed of.
27.04.2026 (SUDEEPTI SHARMA)
Ayub/Sahil JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes / No
Whether reportable: Yes / No
MOHD AYUB
2026.05.04 14:22
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/judgment.
[ad_1]
Source link
