FAO No.1704 of 2005 (O&M) with -1- Cross Objection No.94-CII of 2007 S. No.261 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** FAO No.1704 of 2005 (O&M) with Cross Objection No.94-CII of 2008 Date of Decision:23.07.2026 U.P. State Transport Corporation Bareilly .....Appellant Vs. Gurbux Kaur and others .....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHVIR SINGH RATHOR Present:- Mr. Sandeep Kotla, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Sandeep Khunger, Advocate and Mr. Saksham Khunger, Advocate for respondents No.1 to 3. **** Yashvir Singh Rathor, J. (Oral) 1. This appeal has been instituted by the owner of the offending vehicle against the Award dated 23.11.2004 passed in MACT case No.103 of 2001 decided by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ferozepur (for short “Tribunal”) in a petition under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, vide which a sum of Rs.8,40,000 has been awarded as compensation to the claimants on account of death of Mulkh Raj in a motor vehicular accident which took place due to rash and negligent driving on the part of respondent No.5 while driving the offending vehicle bearing No.UP-25-5867 (hereinafter referred to as ‘offending vehicle’) alongwith interest @9% per annum from the date of award till realisation. RENU 2026.07.29 10:50 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh FAO No.1704 of 2005 (O&M) with -2- Cross Objection No.94-CII of 2007 2. Case of claimants is that on 19.03.2003 , claimant No.2 – Narinder Kaur alongwith her husband Mulkh Raj Singh and their son Gagandeep Singh was going in the Santro Car No.PB-04/G-0507 from Delhi to Lucknow via Bareilly . At about 05:15 PM, when they reached near Village Zed within the jurisdiction of Police Station Faridpur, District Bareilly, offending Bus came from the opposite side which was being driven by its driver Sartaj Khan in a rash and negligent manner and the bus hit their car, as a result of which, all the occupants of the car suffered injuries. The occupants of the car were shifted to Ganga Charan Hospital, Delhi where Mulkh Raj Singh died. It is further submitted that the offending bus had come towards the wrong side and hit the car which was being driven on the due left side of the road. FIR No.91 of 2003 was registered on the statement of Jagmohan Singh against driver of the offending bus for the offences under Sections 279, 338, 304-A IPC at Police Station Faridpur, District Bareilley. As per claimants, the accident in question had taken place on account of rash and negligent driving on the part of driver of the offending bus. Deceased is survived by his wife, mother and two sons. Deceased was working as Chief Manager, Punjab & Sind Bank and posted at Lucknow and he was getting Rs.20,000/- per month as salary. He also used to earn Rs.1 lakh per annum by managing his ten acres of land. All the claimants were dependent upon him and compensation to the extent of Rs.20 lakhs has been sought. 3. Respondents No.1 to 3 filed their joint written statement challenging the petition preliminary on the ground of non-joinder of necessary parties and jurisdiction. On merits, contents of the claim petition have been refuted to be wrong. It has been denied that that the bus was being driven by its driver in a rash RENU 2026.07.29 10:50 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh FAO No.1704 of 2005 (O&M) with -3- Cross Objection No.94-CII of 2007 and negligent manner or that it hit the car after going towards wrong side of the road. Rather, it is submitted that the bus was coming from the side of Shahjanpur and going towards Bareilley which was being driven at a normal speed and when the bus reached near Village Zed, Santro Car bearing No.PB-04-G-0507 which was coming from the opposite direction in a rash and negligent manner tried to overtake a truck and in that process, the car hit the bus. The bus driver tried his best to avoid the accident and even took the bus towards his left side on kacha path but car hit the driver’s side of the bus and the accident took place solely on account of rash and negligent driving of the car driver. To conceal the true facts and fault of the car driver, the car was taken away from the place of accident by the companions of the car driver and was kept concealed for more than 11 days from the police and was produced before the police after getting it repaired. Dismissal of the claim petition was sought. 4. No written statement was filed by respondent No.4 and following issues were framed:- “1. Whether Mulkh Raj Singh died in motor vehicle accident caused by respondent No.3 while driving bus No.UP-25/5867 rashly and negligently in the area of village Zed P.S. Faridpur, District Bareilly on 19.3.2003 at 5.15 P.M.?OPP. 2. Whether the claimants are the legal heirs of Mulkh Raj Singh and were dependent upon him?OPP. 3. If issues No.1 and 2 are proved, whether the claimants are entitled to compensation? If so to what amount and from whom?OPP. 4. Whether the claim petition is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties as owner and insurer of Santro Car No.PB-04/6-0507 are the necessary parties?OPR. RENU 2026.07.29 10:50 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh FAO No.1704 of 2005 (O&M) with -4- Cross Objection No.94-CII of 2007 5. Whether this court has no jurisdiction to entertain and try this petition?OPR 1 to 3. 5. In support of their claim, applicants examined A.W.1 Narinder Kaur who tendered her affidavit Exhibit AW1/A, AW.2 Dr. Deepak Kumar Saxena, AW3 Sawaranjit Singh, Manager Punjab and Sind Bank Zonal Office, Faridkot who tendered his affidaivt Exhibit A.W.3/A and salary slip of Mulkh Raj Singh Exhibit A2 and A.W.4 Pirthi Raj Chohan MHC of P.S. Fairdpur, District Bareilly (U.P.) who tendered his affidavit Exhibit A4 and closed their evidence. 6. Respondents No.1 to 3 examined R.W.1 Sartaj Khan who tendered into evidence his affidavit Exhibit RA and R.W.2 Iftakhar Ali who tendered into evidence his affidavit Exhibit RB and closed the evidence,. 7. After hearing the parties and on going through the record, the learned Tribunal held under Issue No.1 that the accident in question had taken place due to rash and negligent driving on the part of drivers of the bus as well as the car and they both had contributed to the accident and after assessing the compensation, 50% amount was deducted on account of contributory negligence of the deceased himself and a sum of Rs.8,40,000/- was awarded as compensation to be paid by respondents No.1 to 3 jointly and severally. Under issue No.4, it was held that the petition is not bad on account of non-joinder of necessary parties and under Issue No.5, it was held that the Tribunal had the jurisdiction to try the present petition and ultimately, a sum of Rs.8,40,000/- was awarded as compensation. 8. Feeling aggrieved, the appeal in hand has been preferred by owner- U.P. State Road Transport Corporation Bareilly while the claimants have filed cross objections. The material on file has been perused and parties have been heard. RENU 2026.07.29 10:50 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh FAO No.1704 of 2005 (O&M) with -5- Cross Objection No.94-CII of 2007 9. Learned counsel for appellants argued that the finding of the learned Tribunal on Issue No.1 that the drivers of both the vehicles had contributed to the accident by way of their rash and negligent driving is contrary to facts and the evidence on file has not been appreciated in the correct perspective. Learned counsel contended that the car being driven by the deceased had hit the bus after coming to the wrong side while trying to overtake a truck. The driver of the bus took the bus to the extreme left on the kacha portion of the road but the car hit on the driver’s side of the bus which resulted in the accident and in these circumstances, the bus driver cannot be held to be rash and negligent and infact accident had taken place solely due to rash and negligent driving of the deceased himself and finding on issue No.1 is thus liable to be reversed. 10. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents / cross objectors argued that the version put forward by the driver of the offending bus is false. The bus had hit the car after coming towards the wrong side which was being driven on its due left side. The police after conducting investigation has filed the report under Section 173 Cr.P.C against the driver of the offending bus. No cogent and convincing evidence has been led by the respondents to prove that the car had hit the bus after going towards the wrong side. No site plan of the place of accident has been led in evidence to show the actual site of accident and the driver and conductor examined by respondents are not reliable witnesses as they are interested in the success of their case and learned Tribunal has wrongly come to the conclusion that drivers of both the vehicles were equally responsible for the accident and since the driver of the bus has been challaned by the police for causing the accident in question, it is safe to presume that accident in question RENU 2026.07.29 10:50 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh FAO No.1704 of 2005 (O&M) with -6- Cross Objection No.94-CII of 2007 had taken place solely due to rash and negligent driving on his part. Learned counsel contended that finding on Issue No.1 be modified and same be decided in favour of claimants. 11. At the very outset, it is pertinent to mention that record of the Tribunal has burnt in a fire incident in the High Court Registry and no document or statements of witnesses recorded before the Tribunal are available and as such, the appeal as well as cross objections have to be decided on the basis of discussion of facts and evidence made by the Tribunal in the impugned award. 12. Learned Tribunal while deciding Issue No.1 has observed and held as under:- “12. To prove this issue claimants A.W.1. Narinder Kaur tendered her affidavit as A.W.A/A stating the allegations of claim application more or less in entirety which I need not reproduced in full. According to her on the day of occurrence Mulkh Raj Singh deceased her husband alongwith her and their son Gagandeep Singh was going from Delhi to Lucknow via Bareilly in their Santro Car. There was no other person travelling in their car. Their car met with accident with U.P. State Transport Corporation Bus No.UP-25-5867 driven by Sartaj Khan driver rashly and negligently. FIR was registered against him on that statement of Jagmohan Singh, Branch Manager of Punjab & Sindh Bareilly. Her husband suffered multiple injuries in this accident and was immediately removed to Sh. Ganga Charan Hospital, Delhi where he died on the same day. She herself also received grevious injuries. She was intenses and the people going on the road had taken them to the hospital. 13. To rebut her statement R.W.1. Sartaj Khan deposed in his affidavit Exhibit RA among other things that on 19.3.2003 bus bearing No.UP-25-5867 driving by him was coming from Shahjan RENU 2026.07.29 10:50 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh FAO No.1704 of 2005 (O&M) with -7- Cross Objection No.94-CII of 2007 Pur towards Bareilly at a normal speed within his contro. Iftakhar Ali son fo Raz Ali was conductor of the bus at that time. When said bus reached near village Zed the Santro Car bearing No.PB-04-G- 0507 came from opposite direction being driven rashly and negligently by its driver who in the process of overtaking a truck struck the car with the bus. He (RW1) tried his best to aviod the accident and even took the bus towards his left side kacha path but even then Car struck the bus on its driver side. Accident occurred solely on account of rash and negligent driving of the car by its driver. Car was produced before the police after 11 days ton conceal fault of driver of the car. 14. Learned counsel for the applicants vehemently argued that accident had taken place due to rash and negligent driving of bus by Iftakhar Khan. In this connection he has heavily relied upon statement of Narinder Kaur wife of deceased Mulkh Raj Singh who was with the deceased in a ill fated car at the time of accident. I his view since bus driver has taken plea of negligence of car driver therefore instant is a case in which principle of re ipsd loquitur can be applied. He further argued that Iftakhar Ali examined R.S.2 has failed to prove himself to be eye witness of the accident. In support he relied upon Bishansingh Thakursing Vs .Nasira Kadar Shaikh & Ors, 2003(1) Civil Court Cases 241 (Bombay), Learned counsel for the applicants also argued that driver is being tried on account of rash and negligent driving which is sufficient to conclude that accident occurred on account of his fault. In this respect he has relied upon Girdhari Lal Versus Radhey Shyam and others Vol. CIV (1993-2). The Punjab Law Reporter 109, Dr. B.D. Bagri Vs. Daulat Ram and others 1998 ACJ 1303. It is also argbued that even in case of composit negligence of both the drivers Tribunal can aportion the liability in proportioned of respective negligence of the driver. In this connection reliance has been placed upon Sitaram Prabhu Tele an another Vs. Rajabai Vilas Patil and others, 2002 ACJ 85. RENU 2026.07.29 10:50 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh FAO No.1704 of 2005 (O&M) with -8- Cross Objection No.94-CII of 2007 15. Learned counsel for the respondents however challenged the aforesaid contention on the ground that accident had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of Mulkh Raj Singh himself who in the process of overtaking a truck struck his car with the bus driver of which tried his level best to avoid the accident by bringing the bus towards his left side on kacha path. According to him from the statement of Sartaj Khan it is clear that accident took place on kacha path from where the car was removed. Iftakhar Ali as R.W.2 has supported Sartaj Khan. 16. I have considered the rival contentions in the liht of evidence on record and the rulings cited by learned counsel for the applicants. In this case presence of Narinder Kaur with Mulkh Raj Singh at the time of accident has not been disputed by way of suggestions or otherwise. Except her bald statement as A.W.1 in the form of her affidavit Exhibit AW1/A no other material has been brought on record by the applicants. Thus there is no scope for applying principle of res ipso loquitur in the absence of any site plan of place of accident or photographs of the accident or at least both the vehicles involved in the accident. Therefore, ruling of Bishansing Thakursing case supra cannot be applied. Rulings of Dr. B.D. Bagri and Gridhari lal cases supra too are no authority for proposition that in case of accident it is the driver of heavy vehicle who could be said to be rash and negligent. 17. From the bold statement of Narinder Kaur and statement of Sartaj Khan it can be safely concluded that accident took place due to negligence on the part of both Mulkh Raj Singh and Sartaj Khan. From the applicants side though rash and negligent driving by the driver of the bus has been stated which has been denied by Sartaj Khan as R.W.1. No site plan of the place of accident or photographs of the accident or of vehicles involved in the accident have been brought on file in support of statement of Narinder Kaur for probe if the accident had taken place only due to the fault of Sartaj Khan. RENU 2026.07.29 10:50 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh FAO No.1704 of 2005 (O&M) with -9- Cross Objection No.94-CII of 2007 18. Sartaj Khan as R.W.1 has failed to state the number of truck allegedly in process of overtaking of which the Santro car was struck by its driver in his bus as according to him he was looking toward the truck itself. He did not report the matter to the police. He admitted that there were about 80/85 passengers in the bus at the relevant time against sanctioned capacity of 52 passengers from which it can be safely concluded that he was not in a position to apply the brakes to the bus suddenly in case of need and in this way rashneses and negligence on his part is also proved. Moreover, he too has failed to bring on record the site plan in support of the fact that he took his bus towards his own side on a kacha path. Iftakhar Ali examined as R.W.2 though has claimed to be conductor of the bus but he has not brought on record duty roster in support of his such stand. In cross- examination he stated that there were 27/28 passengers which were admitted to be on board the bus at the relevant time as per Sartaj Khan. He took failed to tell the number of the truck which was allegedly coming from the opposite side. He has claimed that he lodged the report of accident to the police but failed to tell rapat number. No such report or copy thereof even has been brought on record. A.W.4 Pirthi Raj Chuhan MHC has only brought on record FIR as Exhibit AW4/A without anything more. It is worth pointing out that FIR is registered at the instance of Jagmohan Singh who is neither occupant nor eye witness of the accident. Therefore, on the basis of evidence on record it can be said that accident had occurred due to rash and negligence driving by both Mulkh Raj Singh and Sartaj Khan. This issues is accordingly decided.” 13. In this manner, the version of claimant – Narinder Kaur while appearing as AW1 is that she along with her husband – Mulkh Raj (since deceased) and their son, was going to Lucknow in their Santro car and when they reached near Village Zed, offending bus came from the opposite direction which RENU 2026.07.29 10:50 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh FAO No.1704 of 2005 (O&M) with -10- Cross Objection No.94-CII of 2007 was being driven rashly and negligent and the bus hit their car after coming towards the wrong side resulting into death of Mulkh Raj Singh. 14. On the other hand, stand of respondent – Sartaj Khan while appearing as RW1 is that he was coming from the side of Shahjanpur and going towards Bareilley while driving the bus in question at normal speed and on due left side of the road. The driver of the Santro Car was trying to overtake one truck while coming from the opposite direction and during the process of overtaking, car hit his bus despite the fact that he tried to avoid the accident by taking his bus towards kacha portion of the road on the left side. Respondents have also examined RW2, who was conductor of the bus, who has also corroborated his version but it is not in dispute that the respondent – Sartaj Khan has been challaned by the police for the offences under Sections 279, 304-A IPC in case arising out of FIR No.91 of 2023. Once he has been challaned by the police, it can be assumed that the accident had taken place on account of rash and negligent driving on his part. However, in case the driver wants to disprove the version of the claimants, he is required to lead cogent and convincing evidence to establish this fact. The rough site plan of the place of occurrence is always prepared in such cases by the police showing the site of accident and in case, car had come towards wrong side and hit the bus, respondents should have led in evidence the site plan or at least examined the Investigating Officer to establish that the accident had taken place due to rash and negligent driving on the part of the car driver. 15. In 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 9, ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd V. Rajni Sahoo it has been held that the police records including FIRs and RENU 2026.07.29 10:50 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh FAO No.1704 of 2005 (O&M) with -11- Cross Objection No.94-CII of 2007 chargesheets are admissible evidence for determining the negligence, which is to be determined on the basis of preponderance of probabilities, not beyond reasonable doubt. It was held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that the Tribunal and High Court were justified in relying on such documents to conclude that the driver of the offending vehicle was rash and negligent. The contention of Insurance Company that the respondent connived with the police to prepare a fraudulent charge sheet was rejected due to lack of evidence. 16. Besides this, it is also well settled that if police after conducting investigation challans the driver for causing death due to rash and negligent driving, it is safe to assume that the accident had taken place due to rash and negligent driving on his part. Reference in this regard can be made to 1993(2) PLR 109 – Girdhari Lal Vs. Radhe Shyam and others. Hon’ble Supreme Court in 2018 ACJ 1300, Mangla Ram Vs. Oriental Insurance Company Limited has held that negligence on the part of driver of the offending vehicle is required to be decided by the Tribunal on the touch stone of preponderance of probability and not by standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt and filing of charge-sheet against driver of the offending vehicle points towards his complicity in driving the vehicle rashly and negligently. Besides this, it is also well settled that Tribunals established under the Motor Vehicles Act, are not governed by the rules of procedure envisaged by the Civil Procedure Code and the Tribunals are required to evolve their own procedure to meet the ends of justice, based on the principles of justice, equity and good conscience. The proceedings before the Tribunal are of summary nature wherein enquiry has to be conducted and the evidence is not to be scrutinized, in the manner as is done in a civil or in a criminal case. In a criminal RENU 2026.07.29 10:50 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh FAO No.1704 of 2005 (O&M) with -12- Cross Objection No.94-CII of 2007 case, the rule is of proof beyond reasonable doubt and in civil cases, the rule is of preponderance of probabilities and if there is some evidence before the Claims Tribunal to prove a fact, no nicety, doubt or suspicion should weigh with it, in deciding a Motor Accident Claims case. Besides this, Hon’ble Supreme Court while deciding Special Leave to Appeal (C) No.10351/2019 titled Ranjeet & Anr. vs. Abdul Kayam Neb & Anr., vide judgment dated 25.02.2025 has held that once a charge sheet has been filed and the driver has been held to be negligent, no further evidence is required to prove that the offending vehicle was being negligently driven by its driver. Even if the eye-witnesses are not examined, that will not be fatal to prove negligence of the driver of offending vehicle resulting in the accident. 17. In the present case also, the driver has been prosecuted by the police for the offences under Sections 279, 338, 304-A IPC after registration of the FIR which is a strong circumstance to come to the conclusion that the accident in question had taken place due to rash and negligent driving on his part. Learned Tribunal committed a grave error while holding the drivers of both the vehicles equally responsible for the accident despite noticing the fact that the rough site plan of place of the accident has not been led in evidence by either of the parties. However, onus was upon the respondents to establish that driver was not driving the bus in a rash and negligent manner particularly because he had already been challaned by the police and he was facing the trial for causing the accident by way of rash and negligent driving. Resultantly, finding of learned Tribunal on issue No.1 is not sustainable and it is accordingly held that accident had taken place RENU 2026.07.29 10:50 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh FAO No.1704 of 2005 (O&M) with -13- Cross Objection No.94-CII of 2007 solely due to rash and negligent driving on the part of respondent No.1 while driving the offending bus and issue No.1 is decided in favour of the claimants. 18. As per version of claimants, deceased was working as Chief Manager in Punjab & Sind Bank and earning over Rs.20,000/- per month and besides this, he was also owner of ten acres of land in District Ferozepur and used to earn Rs.1 lakh per annum through agricultural income, however, no revenue record has been led in evidence to establish the ownership of the land and oral testimony in this regard cannot be relied upon. 19. The salary certificate of deceased has been tendered in evidence as Ex.A2 which has been proved by AW2 Swaranjit Singh, an official of the Bank which shows that his salary in February, 2023 was Rs.20,022/-. No evidence to prove the contrary was led by the respondents and accordingly his income is taken as Rs.20,000/-. 20. However, no future prospects have been added to the monthly income of the deceased. Deceased was 56 years of age as also held by the Tribunal but he was in permanent government employment and as such, 15% amount has to be added towards future prospects to the monthly income of the deceased towards future prospects in view of law laid down in Pranay Sethi’s case (supra),which takes his monthly income to Rs.23,000/- (Rs.20,000/- + Rs.3,000/-). 21. Out of this , a sum of Rs.2500/- has to be deducted towards income tax and after deducting the same, monthly income comes out to Rs.20,500/- (Rs.23,000/- - Rs.2,500/-). 22. The petition in hand has been instituted by mother, wife and one son of the deceased. Accordingly, it is held that deceased has left behind 3 dependents RENU 2026.07.29 10:50 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh FAO No.1704 of 2005 (O&M) with -14- Cross Objection No.94-CII of 2007 and 1/3rd of the income thus has to be deducted towards personal and living expenses. After deducting a sum of Rs.6,834/- towards personal expenses, the monthly loss of dependency comes out to Rs.13,666/- (Rs.20,500/- - Rs.6,834/-) and the annual loss of dependency comes out to Rs.1,63,992/- per annum (Rs.13,666/- X 12). 23. As per guidelines laid down in Sarla Verma’s case (supra), multiplier of 9 has to be applied as deceased was 56 years of age and after applying the same, the loss of dependency comes to Rs.14,75,928/- (Rs.1,63,992/-/- X 9). 24. In addition to this, claimant No.2(wife of the deceased) is held entitled to a sum of Rs.70,000/- under conventional heads i.e. Rs.40,000/- towards ‘loss of consortium’, Rs.15,000/- towards ‘loss of estate’ and Rs.15,000/- on account of ‘funeral expenses’, as per law laid down in Pranay Sethi’s case (supra). Likewise, claimants No.1 and 3 who are mother and son of deceased are also held entitled to a sum of Rs.40,000/- each on account of ‘loss of filial and parental consortium’, in view of law laid down in Nanu Ram’s case (supra) and Satinder Kaur’s case (supra), which takes the compensation to Rs.16,25,928/-. 25. Accordingly, the compensation to be awarded to the appellants/claimants is assessed as under:- S.No. Under Head Compensation awarded by the High Court 1. Monthly income of deceased Rs.20,000/- per month 2. Age of deceased 56 years 3. Future prospects @ 15% Rs.3,000/- RENU 2026.07.29 10:50 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh FAO No.1704 of 2005 (O&M) with -15- Cross Objection No.94-CII of 2007 4. Total income Rs.23,000/- 5. Income Tax Rs.2,500/- 6. Total Income after deduction of Income Tax Rs.20,500/- 5. Number of dependents 3 6. Deduction towards personal expenses of the deceased (1/3rd) Rs.6,834/- 7. Monthly loss of dependency Rs.13,666/- (Rs.20,500/- - Rs.6,834/-) 7. Annual loss of dependency Rs.1,63,992/- (Rs.13,666/- X 12) 8. Multiplier 9 9. Compensation on account of Loss of dependency Rs.14,75,928/- 10. Compensation under conventional head to claimant No.2- wife Rs.70,000/- 11. Consortium to mother and son of deceased Rs,80,000/- (Rs.40,000/0 X 2) Rs.40,000/- each Total Compensation Rs.16,25,928/- (Rounded to Rs.16,26,000/-) Interest 9% 26. Resultantly, the appeal in hand is dismissed while cross objections filed by claimants are partly accepted with costs and claimants No.1 to 3 are held entitled to a sum of Rs.16,25,928/- as compensation. The enhanced compensation thus comes out to Rs.7,85,928/- (Rs.16,25,928/- - Rs.8,40,000/-) (Rounded to Rs.7,86,000/-) over and above the compensation awarded by the Tribunal payable alongwith interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of claim petition i.e. 23.11.2004, till realization payable by respondents No.1 to 3 (before the Tribunal), jointly and severally. Out of the enhanced compensation, a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- each be paid to the mother and son of the deceased and the RENU 2026.07.29 10:50 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh FAO No.1704 of 2005 (O&M) with -16- Cross Objection No.94-CII of 2007 remaining amount be paid to wife of the deceased along with proportionate interest. 27. Registry is directed to email the authenticated copy of the award to the respondent Insurance Company in terms of directions issued by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Writ Petition (Civil) No.534 of 2020 titled Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Versus Union of India and others, decided on 16.03.2021 and Insurance Company shall comply with the directions as issued under Clause (F) of the said judgment. 28. Cross Objection No.94-CII of 2007 stand disposed of. 29. Pending misc. application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. (Yashvir Singh Rathor) Judge July 23, 2026 renu Whether Speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No RENU 2026.07.29 10:50 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh