IN TH 218 Kamla Devi an Mohamed Har CORAM :HO Present: AMARINDER 1. seeking enhan Accident Cla Tribunal”). V compensation Tribunal appo offending truc car bearing N entitled to a interest @ 12% realization, pay 2. the deceased, Nath, was trav  -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJA CHANDIGARH evi and Others Versus ed Harun and Others HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMAR Mr. Haneet Sharma, Advocate for the appellants. Mr. Lalit Garg, Advocate for the respondent-Insurance Com *** NDER SINGH GREWAL, J. The present appeal has been file enhancement of compensation awa t Claims Tribunal, Jagadhri (here l”). Vide award dated 17.11.2000, sation on account of death of Bud l apportioned liability to the extent o g truck bearing No. UTS-680 and 45% ring No. DL-2CE-7476. Consequent to a net compensation of ₹3,67,750 @ 12% per annum from the date of f on, payable jointly and severally by re The brief facts, as per the claim p eased, Budh Ram, along with Gurba as traveling in a Maruti car driven by UNJAB AND HARYANA AT GARH FAO-1150-2001 Reserved on: 09.04.2026 Pronounced on: 23.04.2026 Uploaded on: ...Appellants ... Respondents MARINDER SINGH GREWAL e Company. en filed by the appellants–claimants n awarded by the learned Motor (hereinafter referred to as “the .2000, the Tribunal assessed total f Budh Ram at ₹6,68,650/-. The tent of 55% upon the driver of the d 45% upon the driver of the Maruti quently, the claimants were held 67,750/- (rounded off), along with te of filing of the claim petition till by respondent Nos. 1 to 3. laim petition, are that on 21.08.1999, Gurbachan Singh, Vijay, and Som en by Anil Kumar towards Ambala. 2026 ants otor “the total The f the aruti held with n till 999, Som bala. SHUBHAM 2026.04.24 13:04 I am the author of this document
 At approximat Kalpi, a truck No. 1 (Moham opposite direc sustained inju Chandigarh on the deceased, Respondent N contested the against ex-par evidence, conc While the Trib the truck was fault for failin of 55:45. In a deceased’s sta Yamuna Naga to consider su observing that businesses. B retirement peri aforementione negligence and present appeal 3. impugned aw  -2- oximately 12:15 AM, when they reac truck bearing registration number UT Mohamed Harun) in a rash and neg direction, struck the car. As a result d injuries, and Budh Ram later succ arh on 25.08.1999. The claimants, be eased, filed a petition seeking comp ent No. 1 (Driver) and Respondent d the petition, while Respondent No parte on 04.01.2000. The learned e, concluded that the accident was a he Tribunal falsified the defense of R k was stationary it nonetheless held t failing to avert the collision. Neglige . In assessing compensation, the lea d’s status as a regular employee o Nagar, with a monthly salary of Rs. ider supplementary income from dai g that a full-time employee could n es. By splitting the dependency in nt periods and applying a multiplier o ntioned sum. Aggrieved by the ce and the assessment of income, the appeal. Learned counsel for the appellant d award dated 17.11.2000 was gr ey reached near Mila Poultry Farm, ber UTS-680, driven by Respondent d negligent manner came from the result of the collision, all occupants r succumbed to his injuries at PGI ts, being the widow and children of compensation of Rs. 10,00,000/-. ndent No. 3 (Insurance Company) ent No. 2 (Owner) was proceeded arned Tribunal, after evaluating the was a result of a head-on collision. e of Respondent No. 1 who claimed held the driver of the Maruti car at egligence was apportioned in a ratio learned Tribunal recognized the yee of the Municipal Committee, of Rs. 8,166/-. However, it declined m dairy and agricultural activities, ould not realistically manage such ncy into pre-retirement and post- plier of 11, the Tribunal awarded the the deduction for contributory e, the appellants have preferred the ellants–claimants contended that the as grossly inadequate, unjust and arm, dent the pants PGI en of . any) eded g the sion. imed ar at ratio the ittee, lined ities, such - d the ory d the t the and SHUBHAM 2026.04.24 13:04 I am the author of this document
 legally unsusta settled princip negligence at particularly w driver that the the deceased negligence and not have been Further, it was had been fram been impleade to contest such deceased’s ad agricultural ac same on the g activities, ign Moreover, it w Tribunal was reduced to p ₹8,166/- per m with appropria the amounts consortium an expenditure i Accordingly, e interest @ 12  -3- unsustainable, having been passed on rinciples of law. It was argued that th ce attributed to the driver of the rly when the Tribunal had itself reje at the offending vehicle was stationary eased being a mere passenger, the ce and, therefore, the compensation p e been reduced on account of inter it was contended that no specific iss n framed and neither the owner nor the pleaded, thereby depriving the appella st such finding. Learned counsel furthe d’s additional income of ₹2,000/- ral activities, submitting that the Tri he ground that a government emplo s, ignoring that these were family it was contended that the adoption l was legally unsustainable, inasmuch to pension post-retirement, wherea per month ought to have been applied ropriate addition towards future prosp ounts awarded under the heads of um and funeral expenses were meagre ture incurred on treatment from ngly, enhancement of compensation w @ 12% per annum on the entire e sed on misappreciation of facts and that the finding of 45% contributory of the Maruti car was perverse, lf rejected the defence of the truck tionary. It was further submitted that r, the case was one of composite ation payable to a third party could inter se negligence of the drivers. fic issue on contributory negligence nor the insurer of the Maruti car had ppellants of an effective opportunity l further assailed the exclusion of the - per month from dairy and the Tribunal erred in discarding the employee could not engage in such amily-managed sources of income. option of the split multiplier by the smuch as the dependency had been whereas the last drawn salary of pplied for the entire multiplier along prospects. Lastly, it was argued that ds of medical expenses, loss of meagre and did not reflect the actual from 21.08.1999 to 25.08.1999. tion was sought along with grant of tire enhanced amount without any and utory erse, truck that osite ould vers. ence r had unity f the and the such ome. y the been y of long that s of ctual 999. nt of any SHUBHAM 2026.04.24 13:04 I am the author of this document
 deduction. Rel Court in Khen 1016. 4. Company has illegality or pe well as docum had failed to evidence and compensation. awarded was i revision. It wa well-reasoned Consequently, dismissal. 5. having careful and the eviden following mate (i) 45 M (ii ag (ii leg (iv an  -4- n. Reliance was placed upon the judg Khenyei v. New India Assurance C Per contra, learned counsel fo y has contended that the impugned a y or perversity and had been passed af documentary evidence. Further, it wa ed to substantiate the claim for enh e and the learned Tribunal had alread sation. Learned counsel further argu was in consonance with settled law an . It was maintained that the findings soned and did not call for any ently, it was prayed that the appeal, b After hearing the learned coun arefully gone through the entire paper evidence led before the learned Trib g material issues and points emerge fo (i) Whether the Tribunal was justi 45% contributory negligence to Maruti car; (ii) Whether the rejection of incom agriculture was sustainable; (iii) Whether the "split multipl legally sound; and (iv) Whether the compensation un and medical heads requires revisio e judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme ce Co. Ltd., 2015 (2) RCR (Civil) sel for respondent No.3–Insurance gned award did not suffer from any ssed after due appreciation of oral as was contended that the appellant r enhancement by leading reliable already granted just and reasonable r argued that the rate of interest law and did not warrant any upward dings of the learned Tribunal were any interference by this Court. peal, being devoid of merit, deserves counsel for both the parties and paper-book, including the pleadings d Tribunal, this Court finds that the erge for determination in this appeal: s justified in attributing ce to the driver of the income from dairy and ultiplier" approach is tion under conventional revision. reme vil) ance any al as llant iable able erest ward were ourt. erves and ings t the SHUBHAM 2026.04.24 13:04 I am the author of this document
 6. regarding the 4 perusal of the occurrence, re UTS-680, driv direction (Am Maruti car. PW truck driver's n defense. In his Maruti car stru learned Tribun RW-1, he did version provid Tribunal recor driver's initial of the blame o was a passeng failed to apply passenger is a operation. Leg compensation substantive irr car driver are point, no plea defense, and n rebut the findin  -5- This Court finds that the primar g the 45% deduction for contributory of the testimony of PW-4 Gurbachan ce, reveals that on 21.08.1999, the t 0, driven by Respondent No. 1, wa (Ambala side) in a rash and negl car. PW-4 categorically stated that th iver's negligence. The record shows a In his written statement, Respondent ar struck his truck while it was parked Tribunal, when Respondent No. 1 ap he did not support this version. The provided by PW-4 was corroborated b l recorded a positive finding that the initial defense was falsified, there was lame onto the car driver. Most importa ssenger in the Maruti car. This Court apply the doctrine of "Composite N er is an innocent third party who has n. Legally, the claimants are entitled sation from any of the joint tortf ive irregularities in attributing contrib r are legally unsustainable, as no spe o pleadings were raised by the res and neither the owner nor the insure e finding. Attributing 45% liability bas primary grievance of the appellants utory negligence is well-founded. A bachan Singh, an eyewitness to the , the truck bearing registration No. 1, was coming from the opposite d negligent manner and struck the that the accident was a result of the ows a significant contradiction in the ondent No. 1 took the stand that the parked. However, as observed by the . 1 appeared in the witness box as . The Tribunal rightly held that the rated by the FIR (Ex. P1). Once the at the truck was in motion and the re was no occasion to then shift 45% portantly, the deceased, Budh Ram, Court finds that the learned Tribunal osite Negligence." In such cases, a ho has no control over the vehicle's ntitled to recover the full amount of t tortfeasors. The procedural and ontributory negligence to the Maruti no specific issue was framed on the he respondents to establish such a insurer of the car was impleaded to ty based solely on the assumption of lants d. A the No. osite the f the n the t the y the x as t the e the d the 45% Ram, unal es, a icle's nt of and aruti n the ch a ed to on of SHUBHAM 2026.04.24 13:04 I am the author of this document
 a "head-on co passenger and doctrine of "co of the Hon’ble 2015 (2) RCR negligence, a c recover the en an inter-se dis result in a redu 7. learned Tribun from agricult enhancement balance the do realities of the deceased was Kumar, Assi certificate Ex. and Ex. P.33) conspicuous ab involvement in the village wa requirements o a separate pro the reasoning the land rathe  -6- on collision" is perverse, especiall er and an innocent third party entit of "composite negligence." This vie on’ble Supreme Court in Khenyei v. N RCR (Civil) 1016, wherein it was h ce, a claimant is entitled to sue any o the entire compensation, as the appor se dispute between the owners of the a reduction of the award for the claim The second issue for determina Tribunal was justified in discarding th gricultural and dairy activities. Wh ment of Rs. 2,000/- per month unde the documentary evidence of land ow of the deceased’s primary occupation d was a full-time government employ , Assistant, MC Yamuna Nagar Ex. P2. While the appellants rely . P.33) to prove that the deceased ow ous absence of evidence to establish ent in the daily management of thes ge was produced to explain how the ents of a regular government post, m te profit from dairy farming. Furtherm oning that agricultural income is essen rather than a result of the personal pecially since the deceased was a y entitled to the protection of the is view is fortified by the judgment i v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd., was held that in cases of composite any one of the joint tortfeasors and apportionment of liability is strictly of the offending vehicles and cannot claimant. ermination pertains to whether the ding the claim of secondary income s. While the appellants seek an h under this head, this Court must land ownership against the practical pation. It is an admitted fact that the employee, as proved by PW-2 Brij agar, who produced the salary s rely on the Jamabandi (Ex. P.32 ed owned 8 acres of land, there is a blish his personal labor or specific of these activities. No witness from w the deceased, while fulfilling the ost, managed to personally generate urthermore, this Court finds merit in sentially a return on the asset of sonal exertion of the deceased. The as a f the ment td., osite and rictly nnot r the ome an must tical t the Brij ary P.32 is a cific from g the erate rit in of The SHUBHAM 2026.04.24 13:04 I am the author of this document
 money comes family still ha continues to a surviving mem of compensatio for the loss of deceased throu an intact asset source. Conse assessment to finds no reason 8. fundamentally sudden reduct 2009 (3) RCR as a permanen mandatory as RCR (Civil) 10 9. hospitalized fr Rs. 18,158/- 20,000/-, whic 10. years of age. A = ₹1,225/-) is  -7- comes from the land, not the man; si till has the money. The income gener s to accrue to the benefit of the fam g members or through the leasing of t ensation under the Motor Vehicles Ac loss of the financial contribution that d through his personal labor, and since t asset of the estate, no "loss of depend Consequently, the Tribunal was justi ent to the proven salary of Rs. 8,166 reason to interfere with that finding. Moving to the third issue, the ntally flawed. The dependency of a reduction upon superannuation. Follo CR (Civil) 77, a uniform multiplier manent government employee, an add ry as per National Insurance Co. L il) 1009. The final issue pertains to medica ized from 21.08.1999 to 25.08.1999. (Ex. P-4 to P-31). The Tribunal a , which this Court finds fair and uphol Applying the aforementioned pri age. An addition of 15% towards futu ) is made, taking the monthly in an; since the land is still there, the generated from the 8 acres of land the family through the labor of the g of the property. Since the purpose s Act is to indemnify the claimants n that was uniquely provided by the d since the agricultural yield remains dependency" can be attributed to this s justified in restricting the income . 8,166/- per month, and this Court ding. e, the "split multiplier" method is y of a family does not undergo a . Following Sarla Verma V. DTC, tiplier must be applied. Furthermore, an addition for "Future Prospects" is o. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, 2017 (4) medical expenses. The deceased was 1999. The claimants proved bills of bunal awarded a rounded sum of Rs. upholds. ed principles, the deceased was 50 future prospects (15% of ₹8,166/- hly income to ₹9,391/- and annual , the land f the pose ants y the ains this ome ourt d is go a C, ore, ts" is (4) was ls of f Rs. s 50 - nual SHUBHAM 2026.04.24 13:04 I am the author of this document
 income to ₹1 (Annual depen Verma v. Delh multiplier of 1 11. Nanu Ram, 2 is entitled to Further, ₹18,1 estate, includi with the med computed as 12. that awarded b per annum fro This amount s the appellants negligence is aforementione 13. April 23, 2026 Shubham  -8- ₹1,12,692/-. After a 1/4th dedu dependency = ₹1,12,692/- − ₹28,173 Delhi Transport Corporation 2009 er of 13, the loss of dependency is asse In addition, as per Magma Ge m, 2018 (18) SCC 130, each claima ed to ₹48,400/- towards loss of cons ₹18,150/- each is awarded towards ncluding the 10% escalation as per e medical expenses of ₹20,000/-, th d as ₹13,48,647/-. The enhanced compensation, bein rded by the learned Tribunal, shall car from the date of filing of the claim ount shall be payable by Respondent N llants-claimants in equal ratios. The 4 ce is hereby set aside, and the ntioned terms. Pending application(s), if any, sha (AMAR , 2026 Whether speaking/reasoned:- Whether Reportable:- deduction for personal expenses 28,173/- = ₹84,519/-) as per Sarla 009 (6) SCC 121, and applying the is assessed at ₹10,98,747/-. General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. claimant (widow and three children) f consortium, totaling ₹1,93,600/-. wards funeral expenses and loss of s per Pranay Sethi (supra). Along , the total just compensation is n, being the amount over and above all carry interest at the rate of 7.5 % e claim petition until its realization. ndent No. 3 (Insurance Company) to The 45% deduction for contributory d the appeal is allowed in the ny, shall also stand disposed of. MARINDER SINGH GREWAL) JUDGE Yes/No Yes/No nses rla g the . v. dren) . ss of long n is bove % tion. to utory the SHUBHAM 2026.04.24 13:04 I am the author of this document