-1- 288 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO-2106-2005 Date of Decision: 06.07.2026 KAMLESH DEVI & ORS. ...Appellants Versus VIMAL KUMAR AND ORS. ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PARMOD GOYAL Present: Mr. Jagjit Singh, Advocate for the appellants. Mr. Ravi Ambawata, Advocate for Mr. Sanjay Mittal, Advocate for respondents No.1 and 2. Mr. Deepak Goyat, Advocate for respondent No.3. PARMOD GOYAL, J. (ORAL) Present appeal has been preferred by appellants/claimants who are aggrieved by dismissal of their claim petition vide impugned award dated 06.01.2005, passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ambala (hereinafter referred to as ‘Tribunal’). 2. The claim petition was preferred by appellants/claimants under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 seeking compensation on account of death of Parduman Singh (hereinafter referred to as ‘Deceased’) in accident dated 23.03.2003. As per appellants/claimants deceased was going on his bicycle from his house to the fields towards Bapoli side. He was followed by his brother Giri Raj Singh (author of FIR and eye witness to the accident) on a separate bicycle. At about 11 am when they reached at Police CHIRANJEEV SINGH 2026.07.09 17:14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-2106-2005 -2- Station Shahzadpur on Panchkula-Saha road, a ‘Santro’ car No.HR-49A- 6100 driven by respondent No.1 rashly and negligently came from behind i.e. from Panchkula side and hit the bicycle of deceased while going on extreme left side of the road on ‘kacha’ berm. After causing the accident, the car had stopped at a distance and thereafter, driver of car fled away after leaving the car. Deceased was taken to hospital where he was declared dead. FIR No.24 dated 23.03.2003 under Sections 279, 304 IPC was lodged with Police Station Shazadpur. 3. Learned Tribunal, however, had rejected the claim petition preferred by appellants/claimants finding that their claim with regards to manner of accident is not proved, rather from the evidence of PW2 i.e. Giri Raj Singh (brother of deceased) it is made out that it was deceased who was negligent due to which accident had taken place as he was crossing the road instead of going straight as was stated in the claim petition. Accordingly, claim petition was dismissed while granting Rs.50,000/- as compensation on account of no-fault liability. 4. On consideration, I find no fault with the finding of learned Tribunal can be arrived at in view of statement of Giri Raj Singh PW-2 before learned Tribunal. Admittedly, in the present case, FIR was lodged promptly by Giri Raj Singh PW-2 immediately after the occurrence. As per the version in the FIR the deceased was hit by the car from behind while deceased was going on his bicycle, however, while appearing as witness to prove manner of accident, PW2 Giri Raj Singh brother of deceased in cross- examination had disclosed the true facts and correct manner of accident by stating that accident had taken place when deceased was crossing the road on his bicycle from right side to left side. CHIRANJEEV SINGH 2026.07.09 17:14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-2106-2005 -3- 5. Learned Tribunal has duly taken into consideration site plan Ex.PC which shows that accident had taken place at the entrance of passage road which led to State highway. This fact goes to corroborate manner of accident as was admitted by PW2 in cross-examination. In fact, accident had taken place when deceased was trying to cross the State highway from right to left side all of a sudden while coming from passage/side road. This goes to show that deceased was negligent. The question therefore, would be whether deceased was negligent in totality or had contributed in causing the accident without absolving respondent No.1/driver. 6. Hon’ble Supreme Court in case titled Pramod Kumar Rasikbhai Jhaveri Vs. Karmasey Kunvargi Tak, 2002 (3) LJR 821 had laid down the parameter to conclude contributory negligence in given set of facts as held under :- “8. We do not think that these two reasons given by the High Court fully justify the accepted principles of contributory negligence. The question of contributory negligence arises when there has been some act or omission on the claimant’s part, which has materially contributed to the damage caused, and is of such a nature that it may properly be described as ‘negligence’. Negligence ordinarily means breach of a legal duty to take care, but when used in the expression “contributory negligence” it does not mean breach of any duty. It only means the failure by a person to use reasonable care for the safety of either himself or his property, so that he becomes blameworthy in part as an “author of his own wrong”.” Therefore, in the present case, contribution of both deceased as well as respondent No.1 in causing the accident needs to be seen for evidence led by parties. 7. In the present case manner of accident has not been disclosed CHIRANJEEV SINGH 2026.07.09 17:14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-2106-2005 -4- by respondent No.1. Admittedly, respondent No.1 had not filed any written statement as to disclose manner of accident. On one hand, deceased who was crossing the State highway was under duty to be careful while crossing the same by looking at the traffic coming on the State highway, on the other hand, similar duties would also correspond upon respondent No.2 who was driving the offending vehicle. He was also required to be careful while driving the vehicle and to be aware about the traffic coming from side road. Therefore, from the facts and circumstances of the present case, it is clearly made out that both deceased and respondent No.1 were equally negligent in causing the accident. Accordingly, finding of learned Tribunal is modified. It is held that accident had taken place on account of equal contributory negligence of deceased and respondent No.1. 8. Admittedly, deceased was aged 64 years at the time of his death and a retired DSP. After retiring he was working as an agriculturist. It was claimed that he used to earn Rs.20,000/- from pension and agriculture work and owns 6 acres of agricultural land. However, no evidence regarding ownership of land has been placed on record. Keeping in view the fact that deceased was a police official, having long experience, income of deceased is accordingly taken as Rs.5,000/- per month being agriculturist and managing his land. Pension income cannot be taken into consideration for calculating loss of dependency as claimant No.1 continued to receive family pension. 9. Since the deceased is survived by four dependents i.e wife, three children, 1/4th deductions towards personal expenses needs to be made. Accordingly, appellant-claimant No.1 shall also be entitled to compensation for loss of spousal consortium @ Rs.40,000/-, appellants-claimants No.2 to CHIRANJEEV SINGH 2026.07.09 17:14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-2106-2005 -5- 4 shall be entitled to compensation for loss of parental consortium @ Rs.40,000/- each, Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenses and Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate payable to 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 10. Accordingly, compensation awarded is as under :- Income Rs.5,000/- per month Rs.5,000/- per month Deduction 1/4th (5000-1250) Rs.3,750/- Multiplier 9 9 Total loss of dependency Rs.3,750 x 12 x 9 Rs.4,05,000/- Loss of Estate Rs.15,000/- Funeral Expenses Rs.15,000/- Loss of spousal consortium to claimant No.1 Rs.40,000/- Loss of parental consortium to claimant Nos.2, 3 & 4 Rs.40,000 x 3 Rs.1,20,000/- Total Compensation payable to claimants Rs.5,95,000/- (50% of Rs.5,95,000/- on account of contributory negligence) Rs.2,97,500/- 11. Amount of Rs.50,000/- paid towards no-fault liability shall be adjusted from the amount payable. Appellants-claimants shall be entitled to enhanced compensation except for conventional heads i.e. loss of consortium, funeral expenses and loss of estate (after adjusting Rs.50,000/-) along with 7.5% interest from the date of filing of claim petition till realization of entire amount. Interest on conventional heads shall be payable from August 2017 till realization. Apportionment and liability to pay CHIRANJEEV SINGH 2026.07.09 17:14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-2106-2005 -6- compensation shall be as per award. 12. Present appeal is allowed in above terms. 13. Pending application(s), if any, is/are disposed of accordingly. (PARMOD GOYAL) 06.07.2026 JUDGE chiranjeev Whether Speaking/Reasoned : Yes/No Whether Reportable : Yes/No CHIRANJEEV SINGH 2026.07.09 17:14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document