IN TH Bala Rani a Noor Moha CORAM: Present:- HARKESH assailed the Accident Cl Tribunal”) assessed of contributo was reduce per annum IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJA AT CHANDIGAR FAO N Reserv Pronou Upload Rani and another Versus Mohammad and others AM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HA Mr. J.P. Sharma, Advocate for the appellants. Mr. Nafeesh Ahmed, Advoca for respondent Nos. 1 & 3. Mr. Nikhil Sehrawat, Advoca Ms. Veena Ashwani Talwar, for respondent No. 4-Insuran **** KESH MANUJA, J. By way of the present app ed the award dated 08.05.2009 pas ent Claims Tribunal, Narnaul (herein nal”), whereby compensation to the in favour of the appellants/claim tributory negligence attributed to the educed to Rs. 4,98,000/-, along with nnum from the date of institution o UNJAB AND HARYANA IGARH No. 4475 of 2009 (O&M) eserved On: 18.11.2025 ronounced On: 13.01.2026 ploaded On: 13.01.2026 ...Appellants ...Respondents E HARKESH MANUJA cate dvocate dvocate and lwar, Advocate surance Company. t appeal, the appellants have 9 passed by the learned Motor hereinafter referred to as “the o the tune of Rs. 8,30,000/- was /claimants. However, on account o the deceased, the said amount g with interest at the rate of 8% tion of the claim petition till its DINESH KUMAR 2026.01.13 18:41 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
        -2-      realization, in respect of the death of Zile Singh in a motor vehicular accident that occurred on 01.11.2007. FACTS [2] The appellants/claimants, being legal representatives of the deceased-Zile Singh filed a claim petition before the learned Tribunal praying for grant of compensation on account of death of Zile Singh in a motor vehicular accident which took place on 01.11.2007 while alleging rash and negligent driving of respondent No.1/driver. [2.1] After going through the claim petition and evaluating the evidence led by both the parties, learned Tribunal vide award dated 08.05.2009, arrived at a conclusion that the accident occurred on account of rash and negligent driving of respondent No. 1 as well as contributory negligence on the part of deceased to the extent of 40%. [2.2] Being aggrieved against the aforesaid award dated 08.05.2009; the present appeal has been preferred by the appellants/claimants for setting aside the findings regarding contributory negligence as well as for enhancement of compensation. A detailed narration of the facts of the case is not reproduced for the sake of brevity. ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLANTS/CLAIMANTS [3] Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants/claimants argued that the learned Tribunal has erred in reducing the entitlement of the appellants/claimants to the extent of 40% by holding deceased contributorily negligent to the said extent, without there being any cogent evidence on record to substantiate such a finding. He further submitted that the learned Tribunal wrongly DINESH KUMAR 2026.01.13 18:41 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
        -3-      assessed the monthly income of the deceased at a meager sum of Rs.6,000/- despite uncontroverted evidence indicating earnings of Rs.15,000/- per month; besides having applied an incorrect multiplier of 16 instead of 18, considering the age of deceased who was 37 years at the time of death; therefore, he prayed that the finding of contributory negligence be set aside and the amount of compensation be enhanced as per latest decisions on the subject. ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENTS No. 1 and 3 [4] Learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.1 & 3, driver and superdar of the offending vehicle respectively, contended that the accident did not occur on account of any rash or negligent driving on the part of driver, as he was driving the vehicle in a careful and lawful manner, observing all traffic rules. He further submitted that the appellant was adequately compensated, thus, the present appeal was liable to be dismissed. ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF LEARNED COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENT No.4/INSURANCE COMPANY [5] Per contra, learned counsel representing No.4/Insurance Company submitted that there was no basis to assess the income of the deceased @ Rs. 15,000/- per month as no documentary evidence were available before the learned Tribunal in support. He thus submitted that the learned Tribunal, therefore, rightly assessed the income of deceased. Learned counsel further submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the appellants/claimants were rightly compensated and, thus the present appeal was liable to be dismissed. DINESH KUMAR 2026.01.13 18:41 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
        -4-      DISCUSSION [6] I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the paper-book of the case as well. I find force in the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the appellants/claimants. QUESTION OF INCOME ASSESSED [7] In the present case, perusal of the record indicates that deceased-Zile Singh, at the time of accident was 38 years of age. He was working as a guest teacher in Government Primary School Mamlika Block Punhana District Mewat and was drawing a salary of Rs. 225/- per day besides giving tuitions to the children after school time and earning around Rs. 8,000/- per month. However, learned Tribunal assessed the income of the deceased @ Rs. 6,000/- per month; nevertheless upon perusal of the statements of Fazlurehmad, Head Teacher (PW1), Chiman Lal (PW4) and Bala Rani (PW5), it was sought to be proved on record that the deceased was earning Rs.15,000/- per month and the learned Tribunal erred in assessing the income of deceased @ Rs. 6,000/- per month primarily on the basis that no documentary evidence was produced on record to show the earning capacity of the deceased pertaining to his income from tuitions. [7.1] It is well recognized that a person engaged in regular salaried employment, coupled with imparting tuitions, would ordinarily have a stable and reasonable source of income sufficient not only for self-maintenance but also for supporting his family. Having regard to the age of the deceased, the nature of his avocation, the prevailing minimum wages applicable to unskilled/skilled labour during the DINESH KUMAR 2026.01.13 18:41 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
        -5-      relevant period, and taking into account the probable additional income from tuitions, apart from the income proved on record, this Court deems it just and reasonable to assess the monthly income of the deceased at ₹10,000/-, which shall be taken as the basis for computation of compensation. [8] The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of “Smt. Sarla Verma and others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another,” reported as 2009(3) RCR (Civil) 77, went on to hold that in case the number of dependent family members was 2 to 3, 1/3rd would be deducted as personal expenses from the total income. Relevant para of the judgment is culled out as under:- “30. Though in some cases the deduction to be made towards personal and living expenses is calculated on the basis of units indicated in Trilok Chandra[(1996) 4 SCC 362], the general practice is to apply standardized deductions. Having considered several subsequent decisions of this Court, we are of the view that where the deceased was married, deduction towards personal and living expenses of the deceased, should be one-third (1/3rd) where the number of dependent family members is 2 to 3, one-fourth (1/4th) where the number of dependent family members is 4 to 6, and one-fifth (1/5th) where the number of dependent family member exceeds six.” QUESTION OF COMPENSATION UNDER CONVENTIONAL HEADS [9] Furthermore, in view of the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Smt. Sarla Verma’s case (supra), “National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi and others” reported as (2017) 16 SCC 680 and “United India Insurance Co.Ltd. vs. Satinder Kaur”, reported as (2021) 11 SCC 780, compensation awarded under conventional DINESH KUMAR 2026.01.13 18:41 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
        -6-      heads are also required to be assessed accordingly. Appellants/claimants are thus, held entitled for Rs. 18,000/- as compensation under funeral head and Rs. 18,000/- towards loss of estate. Loss of consortium is assessed to the tune of Rs. 96,000/- (Rs. 48,000 x 2) as the appellants, being spouse, children and parents of deceased are also entitled for spousal, parental and filial consortium. CONCLUSION [10] In view of the discussion made hereinabove, the appellant/claimant is held entitled for the grant of compensation in the following manner:- S.No. Nature Amount (in Rs.) 1. Annual Income of Deceased Rs. 1,20,000/- 2. Deduction (1/3rd) Rs. 40,000/- 3. Net Income (Rs. 1,20,000 – Rs. 40,000) Rs. 80,000/- 4. Future Prospects (40%) Rs. 32,000/- 5. Total Income (80,000 + 32,000) Rs. 1,12,000/- 6. Loss of Income after applying multiplier of 15 as per the age of 38 years (1,12,000 x 15) Rs. 16,80,000/- 7. Loss of estate Rs. 18,000/- 8. Funeral Expenses Rs. 18,000/- 9. Loss of Consortium (48,000 x 2) Rs. 96,000/- 10. Total compensation Rs. 18,12,000/- 11. Amount Awarded by the Tribunal Rs. 4,98,000/- 12. Enhanced Compensation Rs. 13,14,000/- [11] Having bestowed anxious consideration to the record and the settled position of law, this Court is of the opinion that the DINESH KUMAR 2026.01.13 18:41 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
        -7-      reasoning recorded by the learned Tribunal fastening contributory negligence upon the deceased on the premise that he was a gratuitous passenger in a goods vehicle, and consequently exonerating the insurance company while granting recovery rights, are legally unsustainable. Mere presence of the deceased in a goods vehicle, without any cogent, consistent and reliable evidence establishing a fundamental breach of policy conditions or willful violation on the part of the insured, does not ipso facto constitute contributory negligence nor absolve the insurer of its statutory liability under Section 149 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Moreover, the fact that the deceased was travelling in the offending vehicle as gratuitous passenger has been denied by the respondents in their written statement which otherwise has not been proved on record. [12] The Hon’ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Swaran Singh (2004) 3 SCC 297 has categorically held that breach of policy conditions must be proved to be fundamental and casual to the accident, failing which the insurer cannot be exonerated nor granted recovery rights. Similarly, in Shivaji Dayanu Patil v. Vatschala Uttam More (1991) 3 SCC 530 and United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Lehru (2003) 3 SCC 338, it has been held that the insurer’s liability towards third party remains intact unless a conscious and deliberate breach is established. Even in cases involving alleged unauthorized passengers, the Hon’ble Apex Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Baljit Kaur (2004) 2 SCC 1 and Amrit Paul Singh v. TATA AIG General Insurance Co. Ltd. (2018) 7 SCC 558 has emphasized that recovery rights are not to be granted DINESH KUMAR 2026.01.13 18:41 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
        -8-      mechanically and must rest upon proof of willful and fundamental breach attributable to the insured. [13] In the present case, the learned Tribunal has drawn adverse inferences solely on assumptions and admissions in the FIR, without any substantive evidence demonstrating that the alleged travel of deceased as a gratuitous passenger had any nexus with the occurrence of the accident. Consequently, the finding of contributory negligence to the extent of 40% is perverse and is hereby set aside. The insurer, having failed to discharge its burden of proving a fundamental breach, cannot be absolved of liability nor granted recovery rights and is held jointly and severally liable to satisfy the awarded compensation in full. [14] The grant of interest @ 8% per annum is not equitable and just in view of the observations made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in “Smt. Supe Dei and others vs. National Insurance Company Limited and other, reported as (2009) (4) SCC 513 approved in a subsequent judgment titled as “Puttamma and others vs. K.L. Narayana Reddy and another, 2014 (1) RCR (Civil) 443, thus, the interest is enhanced to 9% per annum on the amount of compensation awarded to the claimants from the date of institution of claim petition till its realization. In case the said amount is not paid within three months, the same shall be payable thereafter along with 12% interest from the expiry of period of three months from today. Needless to mention here that the amount of compensation already paid to the claimant shall be deducted from the enhanced compensation. DINESH KUMAR 2026.01.13 18:41 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
        -9-      [15] In view of the aforesaid modification, the present appeal stands disposed off. [16] Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand(s) disposed off. January 13, 2026 ( HARKESH MANUJA ) ‘dk kamra’ JUDGE Whether Speaking / Reasoned : Yes No Whether Reportable : Yes No DINESH KUMAR 2026.01.13 18:41 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document