-1- 239 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO-4218-2001 Date of Decision: 14.07.2026 SANDEEP KUMAR ....Appellant Versus MALKIAT SINGH & ORS ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PARMOD GOYAL Present: Mr. Maneet Kaushik, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Vinod Gupta, Advocate for respondent-Insurance company. PARMOD GOYAL, J. (ORAL) Present appeal has been preferred by injured appellant/claimant being aggrieved by impugned award dated 04.11.2000 passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Karnal (hereinafter referred to as ‘Tribunal’) vide which compensation of Rs.58,725/- was awarded on account of injuries suffered by him in motor vehicular accident dated 22.12.1993 caused by rash and negligent driving of respondent driver while driving truck bearing registration No.RNG-163 (hereinafter referred to as “offending vehicle”). Injured appellant/claimant is mainly aggrieved by findings of contributory negligence wherein injured appellant/claimant was found to have contributed in causing the accident to the extent of 25% and also by quantum of compensation as awarded by learned Tribunal. 2. It is the case of injured appellant/claimant that the offending RAVINDER DHANIA 2026.07.17 15:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-4218-2001 -2- vehicle driven by respondent-driver bearing No.RNG 163 was in front of vehicle of injured appellant/claimant who was driving jeep bearing registration No.DL-1CB-7184, and on application of sudden brakes by driver of offending vehicle, his jeep got dashed into the back of offending vehicle causing damage to the jeep and injuries to injured appellant/claimant and others. Both PW-6 and PW-7 claimed themselves to be eye-witnesses to the accident, PW-7 being injured appellant/claimant and PW-6 Babu Ram being appellant/claimant in another claim petition, had seen the occurrence. Both have stated the manner of accident in same terms. Both have testified that the driver of offending vehicle had suddenly applied the brakes with force and therefore, jeep could not be controlled and it struck against the backside of the offending vehicle. Both PW-6 and PW-7 claimed that accident was on account of rash and negligent driving on the part of respondent-driver of offending vehicle who was rash and negligent in applying the brakes with force without giving any indication to the vehicles coming from backside. 4. Admittedly, respondent-driver has not stepped into the witness box to contradict manner of occurrence as was stated by PW-6 and PW-7. In absence of any evidence on the part of respondent-driver to show contribution in causing the accident by any act of commission or omission, the finding of contributory negligence against driver of jeep-appellant/claimant merely because it was coming from backside is not correctly recorded. The specific case of PW-6 and PW-7 is that the offending vehicle was being driven in the middle of the road in rash and negligent manner and suddenly brakes were applied with force giving no time to react and stop, despite there being proper distance between jeep and RAVINDER DHANIA 2026.07.17 15:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-4218-2001 -3- offending vehicle. The stand taken by respondent-driver was that the offending vehicle was parked on the side of the road and jeep had struck against it, however, there is no material to show and prove the said stand taken by respondent-driver of offending vehicle. No statement was given by PW-6 or PW-7 that driver of jeep was not maintaining proper distance from the offending vehicle or that it was driven at a very high speed. Even, RW-1 who was examined by respondents had stated that number of vehicles had struck against each other on account of sudden application of brakes by offending vehicle. Vehicle of RW-1 i.e. jeep bearing registration No.HNX 4042 had struck against jeep of injured appellant/claimant. He also could not avoid the collision due to sudden application of brakes. He had specifically denied suggestion that respondent-driver of offending vehicle was not responsible for causing the accident. He had clearly stated that despite maintaining a distance of 20 feets, the vehicles got struck against each other as brakes were applied forcefully and suddenly. 5. In view of evidence available on record, it is clearly made out that in the present case, no overt act of commission or omission making injured appellant/claimant liable for contributory negligence has been stated or proved. The stand taken by respondent-driver is totally contradictory to the evidence of PW-6, PW-7 as well as that of RW-1. As per respondent- driver, accident had taken place when his truck was standing in parked condition whereas all the witnesses PW-6, PW-7 and RW-1 had stated that accident had taken place on account of sudden application of brakes by the respondent-driver while driving offending vehicle. 6. In these circumstances, learned Tribunal has erred in recording finding of contributory negligence. In the present case, the entire negligence RAVINDER DHANIA 2026.07.17 15:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-4218-2001 -4- was on the part of respondent-driver i.e. driver of offending vehicle. The finding of learned Tribunal on issue No.1 is accordingly, set aside and it is held that accident had occurred solely on account of rash and negligent driving on the part of respondent-driver while driving offending vehicle. 7. Injured appellant/claimant is also aggrieved by quantum of compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal. The learned counsel for the appellant/claimant has pointed out that injured appellant/claimant had suffered grievous injuries and compound fracture of mid -frontal bone of his forehead with basal dural tear. From his discharge summary, Ex.PS, it is clearly made out that injured appellant/claimant had remained in hospital from 22.12.1993 to 17.01.1994 and had undergone treatment for a long time as is made out from report Ex.PT. It is clearly made out from medical records specially Ex.PO which are discharge slip and follow-up cards as well as Ex.PV which is OPD follow-up card that injured appellant/claimant had remained under treatment for long. 8. It is therefore, proved that injured appellant/claimant had suffered grievous injuries i.e. compound fracture and had remained in hospital for about 01 month, and had undergone treatment for as long as 05 years, and therefore, injured appellant/claimant is entitled to compensation for pain and sufferings which is quantified as Rs.60,000/- instead of Rs.40,000/-. 9. Injured appellant/claimant had been granted Rs.23,300/- towards medical expenses, transportation and special diet. Injured appellant/claimant had only succeeded in proving medical bills to the extent of Rs.3,300/-. He had failed to place on record all the bills and expenditure incurred by him. However, from treatment record, it is clearly made out that RAVINDER DHANIA 2026.07.17 15:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-4218-2001 -5- injured appellant/claimant had remained admitted for about one month and had visited hospital on numerous occasions for next five years. Therefore, compensation for medical expenses, attendant charges, transportation and special diet is assessed as Rs.35,000/-. Injured appellant/claimant must have remained out of work for at least two months on account of injuries and would have lost income during the said period. Injured appellant/claimant was a driver and had suffered injuries while driving the vehicle, therefore, his income as skilled worker is quantified as Rs.2,400/- and accordingly, injured appellant/claimant shall be entitled to Rs.2,400/- x 7 = Rs.16,800/- towards loss of income during treatment. Since, no permanent injuries were suffered by injured appellant/claimant, therefore, total compensation payable to injured appellant/claimant is as under:- Compensation for Pain and sufferings Rs.40,000/- (awarded by Tribunal) Rs.60,000/- Compensation for medical expenses, attendant charges, transportation and special diet Rs.23,300/- (awarded by Tribunal) Rs.35,000/- Loss of income Rs.15,000/- (awarded by Tribunal) Rs.16,800/- Total compensation awarded by Tribunal Rs.58,725/- (25% on account of contributory negligence Rs.78,300/-) Total compensation awarded in appeal Rs.1,11,800/- Total enhanced compensation Rs.1,11,800/- (awarded in appeal) – Rs.58,725/- (awarded by Tribunal) Rs.53,075/- 10. Appellant-claimant is, therefore, held entitled to enhanced compensation of Rs.53,075/- along with 7.5% interest on enhanced amount from date of filing of petition till realization. Apportionment and liability to RAVINDER DHANIA 2026.07.17 15:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-4218-2001 -6- pay compensation shall be as per award. 11. Appeal is accordingly allowed. 12. Pending application(s), if any, is/are disposed of accordingly. (PARMOD GOYAL) 14.07.2026 JUDGE Ravinder Whether Speaking/Reasoned : Yes/No Whether Reportable : Yes/No RAVINDER DHANIA 2026.07.17 15:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document