IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH I. FAO-3859-2004 Kamla Rani and Others . . . . Appellants Vs. Kamal Kishore and Others . . . . Respondents II. FAO-3860-2004 Kamla Rani . . . . Appellant Vs. Kamal Kishore and Others . . . . Respondents **** Reserved on: 05.03.2026 Pronounced on: 07.03.2026 Pronounced fully/opera5ve part: Fully **** CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA Argued by:- Ms. Archana Chauhan, assisng counsel for Mr. Salil Bali, Advocate for the appellants. Mr. Neeraj Khanna, Advocate for respondent No.3- Insurance Company. **** DEEPAK GUPTA, J. These two appeals arise out of two separate awards of the same date passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Gurdaspur, and therefore are being disposed of by this common judgment. FAO No.3859 of 2004 has been filed by the claimants seeking enhancement of compensaon on account of the death of Ravail Chand; whereas FAO No.3860 of 2004 has been filed by claimant Kamla Rani seeking compensaon for the injuries allegedly sustained by her in the same accident. 2. By the impugned awards, the learned Tribunal, while deciding claim peon No. MACT-79-2000 relang to the death of Ravail Chand, granted an amount of ₹50,000/- under the principle of “No Fault Liability”. However, the claim peon bearing No. MACT-78-2000 filed by Kamla Rani for compensaon NEETIKA TUTEJA 2026.03.07 13:54 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-3859-2004 FAO-3860-2004 on account of injuries was dismissed. Both the peons were essenally rejected on the ground that the claimants had failed to prove that the accident in queson had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the bus bearing registraon No. PAB-253 by respondent No.1. 3. The brief facts giving rise to the present appeals are that on 18.08.2000, Ravail Chand boarded the offending bus from Gurdaspur to return to his village. According to the claimants, the bus was being driven by respondent No.1 in a rash and negligent manner and at a very high speed. Despite requests made by the passengers to drive cauously, the driver connued to drive recklessly. When the bus reached near Adda Ram Nagar, the driver allegedly lost control over the vehicle and the bus turned turtle and fell into a drain (Ganda Nala). As a result of the accident, Ravail Chand and several other passengers sustained injuries. Ravail Chand was inially taken to Civil Hospital, Gurdaspur and subsequently shiCed to SGTB Hospital, Amritsar due to deterioraon of his condion, but he succumbed to the injuries on the way on 20.08.2000. 4. It was pleaded by the claimants that the deceased was about 50 years of age and was the sole breadwinner of the family. He was stated to be an agriculturist as well as a milk vendor earning about ₹5,000/- per month. The widow and four children of the deceased thus sought compensaon for the loss caused to them due to his unmely death. Kamla Rani, the widow of the deceased, also filed a separate claim peon alleging that she too had sustained injuries in the same accident and had incurred substanal expenses on account of her treatment. 5. The claim peons were contested by the respondents. The Insurance Company denied that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the bus driver and further pleaded that respondent No.1 was not holding a valid and effecve driving licence. The driver and owner also denied the accident but admiEed that the vehicle was insured with respondent No.3- Insurance Company. Page 2 of 8 NEETIKA TUTEJA 2026.03.07 13:54 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-3859-2004 FAO-3860-2004 6. The learned Tribunal, however, disbelieved the case of the claimants mainly on the ground that Kamla Rani, who appeared as AW-1, was not shown to be a passenger in the bus in the First Informaon Report dated 18.08.2000 (Ex.A2), and that neither the author of the FIR nor any other passenger of the bus had been examined to support the claimants’ version. 7. Learned counsel for the appellants has argued that the Tribunal misdirected itself in discarding the tesmony of AW-1 Kamla Rani merely because her name did not appear in the FIR. It is contended that the FIR is not an encyclopedia of the enre incident and the omission of a passenger’s name therein cannot be treated as a ground to discard otherwise reliable tesmony. It is further submiEed that Kamla Rani herself was a co-passenger and an eyewitness to the occurrence and therefore, her tesmony could not have been brushed aside without any cogent reason. 8. This Court finds merit in the aforesaid submissions. 9. It is well seEled that proceedings before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal are summary in nature and the standard of proof required is that of preponderance of probabilies, rather than proof beyond reasonable doubt. The Tribunal is required to adopt a pragmac approach while appreciang the evidence so as to ensure that just compensaon is awarded to the vicms of motor accidents. 10. In the present case, AW-1 Kamla Rani categorically deposed about the manner in which the accident occurred and stated that the bus was being driven at a high speed and in a rash and negligent manner. Merely because her name was not menoned in the FIR cannot be a valid ground to discard her tesmony, parcularly when the FIR itself records the occurrence of the accident involving the bus in queson. 11. Apart from the above, the Tribunal failed to appreciate the material admissions made by respondent No.1 Kamal Kishore, the driver of the bus. During his cross-examinaon, he admiEed that a criminal case had been registered against him in connecon with the accident and that the bus had NEETIKA TUTEJA 2026.03.07 13:54 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-3859-2004 FAO-3860-2004 been taken into police custody. He also admiEed that the bus had turned turtle, though he denied negligence on his part. 12. Once it stood admiEed that the bus had overturned during the course of the journey resulng in injuries to the passengers, the circumstances themselves clearly pointed towards negligence on the part of the driver. In such a situaon, the principle of res ipsa loquitur becomes applicable, meaning thereby that the very nature of the accident speaks for itself. It was, therefore, incumbent upon the driver to explain how the bus turned turtle despite due care and cauon on his part. No such explanaon has been forthcoming from the respondents. 13. The documentary evidence on record also corroborates the claimants’ version. The post-mortem report (Ex.PA) along with the medical record (Ex.A4) clearly establishes that Ravail Chand had sustained injuries in the accident on 18.08.2000 and succumbed to those injuries on 20.08.2000. 14. The circumstances of the present case clearly aEract the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur, meaning thereby that “the thing speaks for itself”. The said principle is invoked in cases where the nature of the accident itself is such that it would not ordinarily occur in the absence of any negligence. Once the basic facts showing the occurrence of such an accident are established, the burden shiCs upon the driver or the owner of the vehicle to explain that the accident occurred despite exercise of due care and cauon. 15. In Pushpabai Purshoam Udeshi v. Ranjit Ginning & Pressing Co. Pvt. Ltd., (1977) 2 SCC 745, Hon’ble Supreme Court observed as under: “The normal rule is that it is for the plainff to prove negligence but as in some cases considerable hardship is caused to the plainff as the true cause of the accident is not known to him but is solely within the knowledge of the defendant who. caused it, the plainff can prove the accident but cannot prove how it happened to establish negligence on the part of the defendant, This hardship is sought to be avoided by applying the principle of res ipsa loquitur. The general purport of the words res ipsa loquitur is that the accident "speaks for itself" or tell's its own story. There are cases in which the accident speaks for NEETIKA TUTEJA 2026.03.07 13:54 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-3859-2004 FAO-3860-2004 itself so that it is sufficient for the plainff to prove the accident and nothing more. It will then be for the defendant to establish that the accident happened due to some other cause that his own negligence. Salmond on the Law of Torts (15th Ed.) at p. 306 states: "The maxim res ipsa loquitur applies whenever it is so improbable that such an accident would have happened without the negligence of the defendant that a reasonable jury could find without further evidence that it was so caused." Thus, Hon’ble Supreme Court explained that where the accident is of a kind which ordinarily does not happen without negligence, the rule of res ipsa loquitur applies and the burden shiCs to the defendant to prove absence of negligence. 16. Similarly, in Syad Akbar v. State of Karnataka, (1980) 1 SCC 30, the Hon’ble Supreme Court elaborated the scope of the doctrine and held that when the circumstances of the accident are such that the accident would not normally occur without negligence, the mere happening of the accident raises a presumpon of negligence against the person who had control of the vehicle. 17. In the present case, the respondent-driver himself admiEed in his cross-examinaon that the bus had turned turtle and that a criminal case had been registered against him in respect of the said accident. A passenger bus overturning during the course of travel is not a normal occurrence and, in the ordinary course of things, would not happen, if the vehicle was being driven with reasonable care and cauon. In such circumstances, the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur squarely applies and the burden shiCs upon the driver to explain the cause of the accident. 18. No convincing explanaon has been furnished by the respondent- driver as to how the bus overturned despite due care. Therefore, the presumpon of negligence arising from the circumstances remains unrebuEed. 19. In view of the above discussion, the finding recorded by the Tribunal that the negligence of the bus driver had not been proved, cannot be sustained. The said finding is accordingly set aside and it is held that the NEETIKA TUTEJA 2026.03.07 13:54 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-3859-2004 FAO-3860-2004 accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the bus by respondent No.1. 20. Once negligence stands established, the claimants become entled to just compensaon in accordance with the seEled principles governing determinaon of compensaon under the Motor Vehicles Act. 21. As regards the age of the deceased, the claimants asserted that Ravail Chand was about 50 years old, whereas the post-mortem report indicates his age to be about 55 years. Taking the age of the deceased to be between 50 and 55 years, the appropriate mulplier applicable would be ‘11’ in terms of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sarla Verma and others v. Delhi Transport Corpora2on and another, (2009) 6 SCC 121. 22. Although the claimants stated that the deceased was earning ₹5,000/- per month, no documentary evidence has been produced to substanate the said claim. However, it cannot be ignored that the deceased was an earning member of the family. At the relevant me in the year 2000, the minimum wages for an unskilled worker in the State of Punjab were approximately ₹1,795/- per month. Taking guidance from the said figure, the noonal income of the deceased can reasonably be assessed at ₹1,800/- per month, which comes to ₹21,600/- per annum. 23. In view of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Na2onal Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi and others, 2017 (4) RCR (Civil) 1009, an addion of 10% towards future prospects is required to be made as the deceased was between the age of 50 and 60 years. ACer adding 10% towards future prospects, the annual income of the deceased works out to ₹23,760/-. 24. Since the deceased leC behind five dependents, deducon of one- fourth of the income towards personal and living expenses would be appropriate. ACer such deducon, the annual loss of dependency comes to ₹17,820/-. Applying the mulplier of ‘11’, the total loss of dependency works out to ₹1,96,020/-. Page 6 of 8 NEETIKA TUTEJA 2026.03.07 13:54 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-3859-2004 FAO-3860-2004 25. In addion to the loss of dependency, the claimants are also entled to compensaon under the convenonal heads. Considering that the accident occurred in the year 2000, the compensaon under the head of loss of consorum/filial consorum is assessed at ₹20,000/- for each claimant. Accordingly, a sum of ₹1,00,000/- is awarded to the five claimants under this head. A further sum of ₹5,000/- each is awarded towards loss of estate and funeral expenses. 26. Consequently, the total compensaon payable to the claimants is calculated as under:
Loss of dependency: ₹1,96,020/-
Loss of consorum (five claimants): ₹1,00,000/-
Funeral expenses: ₹5,000/-
Loss of estate: ₹5,000/- 27. Thus, the total compensaon comes to ₹3,06,020/-, which is rounded off to ₹3,06,000/-. 28. Since the Tribunal had already awarded an amount of ₹50,000/- under the principle of no-fault liability, the claimants shall be entled to the enhanced compensaon of ₹2,56,000/-. 29. Consequently, FAO No.3859 of 2004 relang to the death of Ravail Chand is allowed. The claimants shall be entled to the enhanced compensaon of ₹2,56,000/-, which shall be shared equally among them. The said amount shall be payable by the respondents jointly and severally along with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the claim peon ll its realisaon. 30. Insofar as FAO No.3860 of 2004 filed by Kamla Rani on account of injuries sustained by her is concerned, learned counsel for the appellant has stated that the appeal is not being pressed as no documentary evidence could be produced to establish the injuries or the expenses incurred on treatment. The statement made by the learned counsel is taken on record. 31. Accordingly, FAO No.3860 of 2004 is dismissed as not pressed. Page 7 of 8 NEETIKA TUTEJA 2026.03.07 13:54 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-3859-2004 FAO-3860-2004 32. Both the appeals stand disposed of in the above terms. A photocopy of this judgment be placed on the connected case file. (DEEPAK GUPTA) JUDGE 07.03.2026 Neeka Tuteja Whether speaking/reasoned? Yes Whether reportable? No Uploaded on.: 07.03.2026 NEETIKA TUTEJA 2026.03.07 13:54 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document