IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** FAO-5036-2018 (O&M) Hukmi Devi and others . . . . Appellants Vs. Angrej Singh and others . . . . Respondents **** Reserved on: 03.07.2026 Pronounced on: 10.07.2026 Pronounced Fully/Operative Part: Fully **** CORAM: HON’BLE MR JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA **** Present: - Mr. Rohit Rana, Advocate, for the appellants. Mr. Deepak Goyat, Advocate, for Ms. Veena Ashwani Talwar, Advocate, for respondent No.3. **** DEEPAK GUPTA, J. The present appeal has been preferred by the claimants seeking enhancement of compensation and assailing the award dated 08.03.2018 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kaithal (hereinafter referred to as "the Tribunal"), whereby compensation on account of the death of Harpal Singh in a motor vehicular accident was assessed at ₹7,41,000/-. However, while holding that the deceased himself had contributed to the occurrence to the extent of 50%, the Tribunal reduced the payable compensation to ₹3,70,500/-, along with interest, directing the respondents to satisfy the award jointly and severally. 2. The claim petition had been instituted under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 by the widow, aged mother and three children of the deceased, pleading that on 04.05.2015, Harpal Singh, who was employed as a Security Guard in a Co-operative Bank at village Rasina, District Kaithal, was returning to his native village from Silver Home Hospital, Mohali, along with his VIVEK PAHWA 2026.07.10 15:08 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-5036-2018 2026:PHHC: 093582 relatives in a car driven by him. It was alleged that at about 7.00 p.m., when the vehicle reached near Shiv Deluxe Dhaba, village Rattangarh, Shahabad, the offending tractor-trolley, being driven by respondent No.1 in a rash and negligent manner, attempted to negotiate a cut by suddenly swerving towards the left without giving any signal or indication and struck the car. Harpal Singh sustained fatal injuries and succumbed to the same, whereas the other occupants also received injuries. On the statement of one of the occupants, namely Vikas, FIR No.182 dated 04.05.2015 under Sections 279, 337 and 304-A IPC came to be registered at Police Station Shahabad. 3. The driver-cum-owner denied the allegations regarding rash and negligent driving and pleaded false implication of the offending vehicle. Without prejudice, it was asserted that in case any compensation was found payable, the liability, if any, would be that of the insurer. The Insurance Company also contested the petition by disputing the manner of occurrence and by pleading breach of policy conditions, including the plea that the driver was not holding a valid and effective driving licence at the relevant time. 4. Upon appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the parties, the Tribunal returned a finding that both the deceased and respondent No.1 had equally contributed towards the occurrence and accordingly attributed 50% contributory negligence to the deceased. The monthly income of the deceased was assessed at ₹8,466/-, but while computing compensation, the Tribunal applied the multiplier of 9, deducted one-third of the income towards personal expenses and declined to award any amount towards future prospects. Consequently, compensation of ₹7,41,000/- was assessed, which was thereafter reduced by 50% on account of contributory negligence. 5. Aggrieved by the aforesaid award, the present appeal has been filed. The main challenge laid by learned counsel for the appellants is twofold. Firstly, it is contended that the Tribunal has gravely erred in attributing contributory negligence to the deceased solely on the basis of an erroneous interpretation of the rough site plan, despite there being unimpeached ocular VIVEK PAHWA 2026.07.10 15:08 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-5036-2018 2026:PHHC: 093582 testimony of PW-1 Vikas, the eye-witness and author of the FIR, which remained unrebutted as respondent No.1 himself did not step into the witness box. Secondly, it is argued that the compensation has been assessed contrary to the settled principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation, (2009) 6 SCC 121 and National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 680, inasmuch as an incorrect multiplier has been applied, no addition towards future prospects has been granted, an excessive deduction has been made towards personal expenses and inadequate compensation has been awarded under the conventional heads. 6. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company has supported the award and submitted that the Tribunal has rightly appreciated the evidence while recording the finding of contributory negligence and that the compensation awarded is just, fair and calls for no interference. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and have carefully examined the record with their able assistance. 8. The principal question that arises for consideration is whether the Tribunal was justified in attributing 50% contributory negligence to the deceased merely on the basis of the rough site plan Ex.R6. 9. The Tribunal has proceeded on the assumption that the deceased, while driving the car, was attempting to overtake the tractor-trolley from the left side and therefore equally contributed towards the occurrence. The entire finding of contributory negligence rests upon an inference drawn by the Tribunal from the rough site plan Ex.R6. 10. Such an approach, in the considered opinion of this Court, cannot be sustained. At the outset, it deserves notice that the claimants examined PW- 1 Vikas, an eye-witness to the occurrence as well as the author of the FIR. His testimony remained consistent throughout that the offending tractor-trolley, while coming from behind, suddenly swerved towards the cut without giving VIVEK PAHWA 2026.07.10 15:08 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-5036-2018 2026:PHHC: 093582 any signal and hit the car. His testimony has not suffered from any material contradiction during cross-examination. 11. Pointedly, respondent No.1—the driver of the offending tractor- trolley—did not enter the witness box. Being the person, who alone could have explained the manner in which the accident occurred, his abstention from the witness box assumes significance. Once the eye-witness account produced by the claimants remained unrebutted, an adverse inference deserves to be drawn against the driver in terms of Section 114 illustration (g) of the Indian Evidence Act. Mere suggestions put during cross-examination cannot substitute substantive evidence. 12. Even otherwise, the Tribunal itself noticed that RW-1 was not an eye-witness and consequently his testimony carried no evidentiary value regarding the manner of occurrence. Having discarded the oral evidence led by the respondents, there remained no legal basis to reject the positive testimony of PW-1. 13. The Tribunal has relied solely upon the rough site plan Ex.R6. A site plan is only a piece of corroborative evidence. Unless its contents unmistakably demonstrate negligence, it cannot override the direct testimony of an eye- witness. Courts cannot substitute conjectures for proved facts merely on the basis of their own interpretation of a sketch map. 12. A careful examination of Ex.R6 rather supports the version projected by the claimants. The site plan shows the car on the extreme left side of the carriageway whereas the tractor-trolley is shown attempting to negotiate the cut situated at point 'A'. The natural inference flowing from the site plan is that the tractor-trolley attempted to overtake the car and abruptly turned left towards the cut, resulting in collision. There is nothing in Ex.R6 from which it could reasonably be concluded that the deceased was attempting to overtake the tractor-trolley from the left side. 13. The finding recorded by the Tribunal is thus founded not upon the contents of the site plan but upon its own speculation regarding the VIVEK PAHWA 2026.07.10 15:08 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-5036-2018 2026:PHHC: 093582 comparative speed of the two vehicles. The Tribunal observed that since the car was allegedly moving at about 50 kmph, it was improbable for the tractor- trolley to overtake it. Such reasoning travels beyond the evidence on record. Courts are required to decide negligence on the basis of legally admissible evidence and not on assumptions regarding the probable speed or mechanical capability of different classes of vehicles. 14. It is equally relevant that a vehicle intending to leave the main carriageway and enter a cut or side road is under a greater duty of care. Before changing direction, the driver is expected to ensure that the movement can safely be undertaken without obstructing or endangering the vehicles already proceeding on the road. Sudden deviation towards a cut without adequate indication constitutes a clear act of negligence. 15. In the present case, there is no evidence whatsoever to establish that the deceased violated any traffic rule or that any negligent act on his part contributed to the occurrence. Contributory negligence cannot be presumed merely because an accident has occurred. The burden to establish contributory negligence squarely lies upon the party asserting it. Except for an erroneous interpretation of Ex.R6, no material has been brought on record by the respondents to discharge that burden. 16. Consequently, this Court is satisfied that the finding of the Tribunal attributing 50% contributory negligence to the deceased is contrary to the evidence available on record and is liable to be set aside. The accident is held to have occurred solely due to the rash and negligent driving of respondent No.1, the driver of the offending tractor-trolley. The finding recorded by the Tribunal on Issue No.1 is modified accordingly. Reassessment of Compensation 17. Once the finding regarding contributory negligence is reversed, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is required to be reassessed. 18. The monthly income of the deceased has been taken by the Tribunal at ₹8,466/- on the basis of Exhibit P2 issued by the employer. Learned VIVEK PAHWA 2026.07.10 15:08 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-5036-2018 2026:PHHC: 093582 counsel for the appellants has fairly not disputed the said assessment. Therefore, the same is affirmed. 19. However, the Tribunal has committed an error while determining the age of the deceased. It proceeded on the basis of the age mentioned in the post-mortem report and applied the multiplier of 9. During the pendency of the appeal, the driving licence of the deceased has been taken on record as additional evidence. The licence shows the date of birth of the deceased as 09.03.1962, which establishes that on the date of accident i.e. 04.05.2015, he was approximately 52 years of age. Consequently, in terms of the principles laid down in Sarla Verma (Supra), the appropriate multiplier would be 11. 20. The Tribunal has further omitted to grant any addition towards future prospects. Since the deceased was between 50 and 60 years of age and was in settled employment, an addition of 10% towards future prospects is liable to be made in terms of Pranay Sethi (Supra). 21. The Tribunal has also deducted one-third towards personal and living expenses. Such deduction is contrary to the settled principle laid down in Sarla Verma. The deceased left behind five dependents, namely his widow, aged mother and three children. Consequently, only one-fourth of the income could legally be deducted towards his personal expenses. 22. The conventional heads also require modification. In view of the judgments of the Supreme Court in Pranay Sethi and Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Nanu Ram, AIRONLINE 2018 SC 1249 each of the five claimants is entitled to consortium. They are accordingly awarded consortium at the prescribed rate under the said judgments. 23. The compensation is accordingly recalculated as under: Head Amount  Monthly income ₹8,466  Annual income ₹1,01,592  Add 10% future prospects ₹10,159 VIVEK PAHWA 2026.07.10 15:08 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-5036-2018 2026:PHHC: 093582  Annual income after future prospects ₹1,11,751  Less 1/4th personal expenses ₹27,938  Annual dependency ₹83,813  Multiplier 11  Total loss of dependency ₹9,21,947  Consortium (₹48,000 × 5) ₹2,40,000  Loss of estate ₹18,000  Funeral expenses ₹18,000  Total ₹11,97,947 (rounded to ₹11,97,000) 24. The Tribunal has already awarded ₹3,70,500/-. The Tribunal has already awarded ₹3,70,500/-. Consequently, the appellants become entitled to an enhanced compensation of ₹8,27,500/- together with interest at the rate awarded by the Tribunal from the date of filing of the claim petition till its realization. 25. Consequently, the present appeal is disposed of in the aforesaid terms by holding that appellants are entitled to the enhanced compensation of `8,27,500/-, which shall be payable by the respondents jointly and severally along with an interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the claim relation till its actual realization. (DEEPAK GUPTA) 10.07.2026 JUDGE Vivek Whether Speaking/reasoned Yes Whether reportable No Uploaded on: 10.07.2026 VIVEK PAHWA 2026.07.10 15:08 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document