IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 253(1) FAO-1518-2002 (O&M) Decided on:14.07.2026 BIMLA DEVI (DECEASED) AND OTHERS ...APPELLANTS VERSUS SURINDER KUMAR AND OTHERS ...RESPONDENTS 253(2) FAO-10-2002 (O&M) Decided on:14.07.2026 M/S UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. ...APPELLANT VERSUS BIMLA DEVI AND OTHERS ...RESPONDENTS 253(3) FAO-11-2002 (O&M) Decided on:14.07.2026 M/S UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. ...APPELLANT VERSUS NARINDER KAUR AND OTHERS ...RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PARMOD GOYAL Present: Mr. Arun Bansal, Advocate, Mr. Anubhav Bansal, Advocate, Ms. Aanchal Chahal, Advocate for appellants in FAO No.1018 of 2002 and for respondents No.2 to 4 in FAO No.10 of 2002. Mr. Lalit Goel, Advocate for appellant in FAO Nos.10 and 11 of 2002. Ms. Madhu Sharma, Advocate for respondent No.3 in FAO No.1518 of 2002 and for respondent No.8 in FAO Nos.10 and 11 of 2002. *** PARMOD GOYAL, J. (ORAL) In present case, three appeals have been preferred, which have arisen out of same award dated 13.09.2001 passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ambala (hereinafter referred to as ‘Tribunal’) in claim petitions preferred on account of same accident SUNIL CHANDER 2026.07.17 18:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-1518-2002 (O&M) -2- FAO-10-2002 (O&M) FAO-11-2002 (O&M) dated 08.08.1999. FAO-1518-2002 (O&M) has been filed by appellants- claimants for enhancement of compensation awarded by learned Tribunal on account of death of Ramesh Chand. FAO-10-2002 (O&M) and FAO-11-2002 (O&M) have been filed by appellant-Insurance Company for setting aside award passed by learned Tribunal being insurer of truck bearing registration No.HR-45-1959. FAO-10-2002 (O&M) and FAO-11-2002 (O&M) 2. Facts of the present case are that on 08.08.1999 Sadhu Singh and Ramesh Chand were travelling in Jeep bearing registration No.HR-01-H-5851 (hereinafter referred to as ‘jeep’) from Cheeka to Subzi Mandi Pehowa along with other persons. The jeep bearing registration No.HR-01-H-5851 was being driven very rashly and negligently at fast speed by its driver. Truck bearing registration No.HR- 45-1959 was going ahead of jeep and was being driven rashly and negligently by respondent-driver of truck. That at about 06:15 a.m. when jeep had reached near Hamira Farm on Cheeka-Pehowa Road, the driver of the truck suddenly applied brakes and the jeep struck in the rear portion of the truck resulting into death of Ramesh Chand and Sadhu Singh and injuries to others. 3. As per appellants-claimants, drivers of both the vehicles i.e. truck bearing registration No.HR-45-1959 and jeep bearing registration No.HR-01H-5851 were responsible for causing the accident. To prove manner of accident as stated in FIR as well as in the claim petition, appellants-claimants have relied upon evidence of Rajinder Singh-PW5, who had asserted that on 08.08.1999 at about 06:15 a.m., he was going SUNIL CHANDER 2026.07.17 18:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-1518-2002 (O&M) -3- FAO-10-2002 (O&M) FAO-11-2002 (O&M) from Pehowa to Cheeka while driving bus bearing registration No.HR- 37-1062 and when he reached near Meera Farm, he saw truck coming from Cheeka side followed by jeep from backside. The said truck had applied the brakes in the middle of the road and the jeep struck against the rear portion of the truck. PW5 specifically asserted that the driver of the truck had applied the brakes without slowing down the speed and since jeep was also coming in rash, negligent and zig-zag manner, accident took place. It was on statement of PW5 that FIR was registered which was duly placed on record as Ex.P2. 4. The sole testimony of PW5 as regards to manner of accident has gone unchallenged and un-reubutted as neither driver of the jeep nor of the truck had stepped into witness box to state manner of accident contradicting evidence of PW5. The version given by PW5 has come in public domain by way of FIR immediately after the accident. 5. Learned counsel for appellant-Insurance Company has argued that in FIR the negligence of truck alone was mentioned by PW5 and it was stated that truck was standing whereas while appearing in witness box, PW5 had contradicted himself by asserting that truck was ahead of jeep and had applied brakes suddenly. 6. It is the evidence of witness before the Court which is relevant and needs to be appreciated. Contents of FIR are only meant for corroboration and are not the statement on oath which can be relied upon as gospel truth by the Courts. Appreciation of evidence led before the Court alone has got evidentiary value and FIR has limited role. In SUNIL CHANDER 2026.07.17 18:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-1518-2002 (O&M) -4- FAO-10-2002 (O&M) FAO-11-2002 (O&M) present case, there is no evidence contrary to facts stated by PW5. PW5 had stood the vigour of cross-examination and had remained assertive regarding manner of accident as was stated by him in examination in chief. FIR is always lodged without giving complete details of manner of accident and while its author is under shock of events taken before him. In present case also, the manner of accident described by PW5 is more reliable than the contents of FIR which were neither on oath nor were subjected to cross-examination. The evidence of PW5 as recorded before Court, therefore, alone can be taken into consideration to find out as to who was at fault. From the assertions made by PW5, it is clearly made out that both truck and jeep were rash and negligent in causing the accident and finding of learned Tribunal holding both truck and jeep liable for contributory negligence cannot be held to be erroneous or perverse. Moreover, perusal of testimony of RW1 (official from Court who brought criminal case file) goes to show that driver of truck namely Vijay Singh was also challaned by police under Section 283 of IPC, 1860 for causing danger or obstruction in public bay or line of navigation and he had pleaded guilty in the said case. Therefore, even truck driver had admitted his fault in causing the accident. Therefore, findings regarding contributory negligence recorded by learned Tribunal are upheld. It is held that accident dated 08.08.1999 was caused on account of rash and negligent driving on the part of drivers of both truck and jeep. 7. Faced with this, learned counsel for appellant-Insurance Company has also pointed that in grounds of appeal, specific ground has SUNIL CHANDER 2026.07.17 18:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-1518-2002 (O&M) -5- FAO-10-2002 (O&M) FAO-11-2002 (O&M) been taken by Insurance Company that despite summoning of witness, witness had not appeared before the learned Tribunal, therefore, the finding of learned Tribunal that driver of the truck was having valid licence cannot be sustained. However, I do not find any merit in the contention raised by learned counsel for appellant-Insurance Company. The onus to prove that truck driver was not having valid driving licence was always upon Insurance Company. Since the onus to prove driving licence of driver of truck to be invalid was upon Insurance Company, it cannot be absolved from same by merely summoning witness and not putting across right questions to him. The duty cast upon the appellant- Insurance Company was to summon and also to examine the witness to prove that licence is not available and despite notice to driver and owner of the truck, licence was not produced either before Insurance Company or before the Court. In fact, appellant-Insurance Company had not made any effort to exhibit criminal file to show that licence was not available. Evidence of RW-1 shows that no question was put to him as to whether driving licence of driver of truck was available on record or not. Therefore, it is appellant-Insurance Company which had failed to discharge onus cast upon it to prove that driver of truck was not having valid driving licence. Therefore, appellant-Insurance Company cannot avoid its liability to indemnify owner and driver of offending truck which was insured with appellant-Insurance Company. 8. In present appeals, appellant-Insurance Company has also challenged the compensation awarded to legal representatives of SUNIL CHANDER 2026.07.17 18:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-1518-2002 (O&M) -6- FAO-10-2002 (O&M) FAO-11-2002 (O&M) deceased Ramesh Chand and Sadhu Ram 9. Learned counsel for Insurance Company has challenged the compensation awarded to legal representatives of deceased Sadhu Ram on the ground that learned Tribunal has wrongly applied deduction of 1/5th instead of 1/4th and has wrongly applied multiplier of ‘16’ instead of ‘15’ in view of age of deceased Sadhu Ram. 10. It is worth noticing that claimants i.e. dependents of deceased Sadhu Ram have not filed any appeal in present case. Had they preferred an appeal for enhancement of compensation, they would have been entitled to future prospects, therefore, this Court is not interfering in award of compensation. If compensation is re-determined then future prospects would be added and compensation awarded by learned Tribunal would not be impacted. Therefore, compensation awarded is just compensation. The effort of the Court is to determine just compensation and not to be bogged down by the mathematical calculation made by the parties. Accordingly, the prayer of Insurance Company for reduction of compensation is declined. 11. In view of above discussion, present appeals preferred by appellant-Insurance Company are dismissed. FAO-1518-2002 (O&M) 12. In the present case, learned Tribunal had awarded the following compensation to appellants-claimants: Income Rs.2,400/- per month Multiplier 16 SUNIL CHANDER 2026.07.17 18:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-1518-2002 (O&M) -7- FAO-10-2002 (O&M) FAO-11-2002 (O&M) Loss of dependency 3,52,640/- Funeral expenses Rs.2,000/- Total compensation awarded Rs.3,54,640/- 13. Appellants-claimants have asserted that Ramesh Chand (hereinafter referred to as ‘deceased’) used to sell vegetables at Cheeka and earn Rs.10,000/- to Rs.12,000/- per month. However, no documentary evidence has been placed on record to prove income and vocation of the deceased. In the absence of any cogent and reliable documentary evidence or any other cogent and reliable evidence, learned Tribunal had taken the income of the deceased as Rs.2,400/- per month taking deceased to be a daily wager. Learned counsel for appellants- claimants has fairly admitted this quantification and is satisfied with the income so determined by learned Tribunal. 14. In the present case, deceased was aged 35 years and accordingly multiplier of ‘16’ is upheld to determine loss of dependency. Similarly, keeping in view age of the deceased, 40% towards future prospects ought to be added to the income of the deceased in view of judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors. 2017 (16) SCC 680. Deceased was survived by wife, three children and mother i.e. five dependents, therefore, 1/4th amount needs to be deducted towards personal expenses. Loss of dependency needs to be ascertained by taking income of deceased to be Rs.2,400/-, by applying 40% towards future prospects, multiplier of ‘16’ and by deducting 1/4th amount towards personal SUNIL CHANDER 2026.07.17 18:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-1518-2002 (O&M) -8- FAO-10-2002 (O&M) FAO-11-2002 (O&M) expenses. Appellant-claimant No.1 shall also be entitled to compensation for loss of spousal consortium @ Rs.40,000/-, appellants-claimants No.2 to 4 shall be entitled to parental consortium @ Rs.40,000/- each, appellant-claimant No.5 shall be entitled to filial consortium @ Rs.40,000/-, Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenses and Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate are also awarded to the appellants-claimants. It is however made clear that in case Hon’ble Supreme Court answer the reference regarding quantum of compensation under conventional head made in Hasina Yasmin & Ors. Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd., 2025 SCC Online SC 2919 in favour of appellants, appellants shall be free to seek said amount by moving appropriate application in this regard. 15. Re-worked compensation payable to appellants-claimants is as under:- Income Rs.2,400/- per month Rs. 2,400/- per month Future Prospects 40% (2400+960) Rs.3,360/- Deduction 1/4th (3360-840) Rs.2,520/- Multiplier 16 16 Total loss of dependency 2,520 X 12 X 16 Rs.4,83,840/- Loss of Estate Rs.15,000/- Funeral Expenses Rs.15,000/- Loss of spousal and parental consortium to claimant No.1 Rs.40,000/- Loss of parental consortium to claimants No.2, 3 and 4 40,000 X 3 Rs.1,20,000/- Loss of parental consortium to claimant No.5 Rs.40,000/- Total Rs.3,54,640/- SUNIL CHANDER 2026.07.17 18:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-1518-2002 (O&M) -9- FAO-10-2002 (O&M) FAO-11-2002 (O&M) Compensation awarded by the Tribunal Total Compensation awarded in appeal Rs.7,13,840/- Difference of amount of compensation Rs.7,13,840/- (awarded in appeal) - Rs.3,54,640/- (awarded by Tribunal) Rs.3,59,200/- 16. Appellants-claimants shall be entitled to enhanced compensation except for conventional heads i.e. loss of consortium, funeral expenses, loss of estate along with 7.5% interest from the date of filing of claim petition till realization of entire amount. Interest on enhanced compensation under conventional head shall be payable from August 2017 onwards till realization. Apportionment and liability to pay compensation shall be as per award. 17. FAO-10-2002 and FAO-11-2002 preferred by appellant- Insurance Company are dismissed. FAO No.1518 of 2002 preferred by appellants-claimants is allowed in above terms. 18. Pending application(s), if any, stands disposed of. Photocopy of this order be placed on the files of connected cases. (PARMOD GOYAL) JUDGE 14.07.2026 Sunil Chander Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No SUNIL CHANDER 2026.07.17 18:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document