XOBJC-278-CII FAO-3180-2016 IN TH 120 National Insuranc Sukhi Devi and o 2. XOBJC-279 National Insuranc Sukhi Devi and CORAM : HON Present: Ms. Mr. for t Mr. Mr. for r for r *** AMARINDER S C.M. No.11431 C.M. No.11507 Both appellant/insuran the appeals. CII-2016 (O&M) & -1- 2016(O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJA AT CHANDIGAR XOBJC- FAO No.3 Reserved Pronounc Uploaded surance Company Limited Versus i and others 279-CII-2016 (O&M) and FAO-319 surance Company Limited Versus i and others HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMAR Ms. Mallika Dhillon, Advocate for Mr. S.S. Sidhu, Advocate for the appellants. r. Sanjeev Goyal, Advocate Mr. Aksshay Sharma, Advocate, for respondents No.1 & 2-Cross Obj for respondents No.1 to 3- Cross Ob ***** DER SINGH GREWAL, J. 1431-CII of 2016 in FAO No.3180 of 1507-CII of 2016 in FAO No.3193 of Both aforesaid applications have be nsurance company seeking condonatio NJAB AND HARYANA IGARH -278-CII-2016 (O&M) & No.3180 of 2016 (O&M) erved on:14.11.2025 nounced on:19.11.2025 oaded on: 21.11.2025 ...Appellant ... Respondents 3193-2016 (O&M) ...Appellant ... Respondents MARINDER SINGH GREWAL te for Objectors in FAO-3180-2016. oss Objectors in FAO-3193-2016. 180 of 2016 193 of 2016 ave been preferred by the applicant onation of delay of 20 days in filing ents ents icant- filing PANKAJ KUMAR 2025.11.21 15:12 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh XOBJC-278-CII FAO-3180-2016 For Delay of 20 days C.M. No.23662 C.M. No.23665 Both respondents-cros re-filing the cross For Delay of 6 days i C.M. No.23663 C.M. No.23666 Both respondents-cros in filing the cross For Delay of 46 days Main Cases 1. This out of MACT No No.12 of 2015) out of the same learned Motor A ‘the Tribunal’). insurance compa quantum of comp CII-2016 (O&M) & -2- 2016(O&M) For the reasons stated in the appli 0 days in filing the appeals is condoned 3662-CII of 2016 in Cross Objection 3665-CII of 2016 in Cross Objection Both the aforesaid applications cross objectors/claimants seeking co e cross objections. For the reasons stated in the appli days in re-filing the cross objections is 3-CII of 2016 in Cross Objection 6-CII of 2016 in Cross Objection Both the aforesaid applications cross objectors/claimants seeking co e cross objections. For the reasons stated in the appli 6 days in filing the cross objections is This order shall dispose of two appe CT No.11 of 2015) and FAO No.3193 015) as well as cross objections filed same accident, challenging awards otor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Sang l’). Both the aforesaid appeals company challenging the award on compensation whereas the cross obj applications, the same are allowed. ndoned. ections No.278-CII of 2016 ections No.279-CII of 2016 tions have been preferred by the ing condonation of delay of 6 days in applications, the same are allowed. tions is condoned. ections No.278-CII of 2016 ections No.279-CII of 2016 tions have been preferred by the ing condonation of delay of 46 days applications, the same are allowed. ons is condoned. o appeals, i.e. FAO No.3180 (arising 3193 of 2016 (arising out of MACT filed therein, as the same have arisen dated 27.01.2016 passed by the l, Sangrur (hereinafter referred to as peals have been preferred by the ard on the ground of liability and ss objections have been preferred by owed. y the ays in owed. y the days owed. rising ACT arisen y the to as y the and ed by PANKAJ KUMAR 2025.11.21 15:12 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh XOBJC-278-CII FAO-3180-2016 the respondents of convenience, f 2. Succ 18/19.10.2014, K village in a Swif one relative nam on the correct sid on the rear seat. A collided with a offending vehicl parking lights, in the deceased cou car struck its re fatally crushed, severely damage dated 19.10.201 304-A, 283, and in the claim pet learned Tribunal deceased, held th pay the compens aforesaid appeals have been prefer compensation aw CII-2016 (O&M) & -3- 2016(O&M) dents-claimants seeking enhancement ence, facts are being taken from FAO N Succinctly, the facts of the case are 014, Kulwinder Singh (deceased) wa a Swift car bearing No.PB-13AJ-3006 namely Sohan Singh. The deceased ect side of the road, with his wife seat seat. At about 1:00 a.m., near the Ele ith a truck-trolla No. RB-06GB-30 vehicle), which had been parked in t hts, indicators, or any other statutory ed could not detect the negligently pa its rear portion, resulting in Kulwin shed, while Sohan Singh survived th amaged. Consequently, on Sohan S 0.2014 was registered at Police St , and 427 IPC against the driver of the im petition preferred by legal repres ibunal while awarding compensation held the insurance company of the of mpensation so awarded by it. Hence ppeals challenging the liability fasten referred by the cross-objectors/claim ion awarded qua death of Kulwinder S ement of compensation. For the sake FAO No.3180 of 2016. se are that on the intervening night of d) was travelling from Patran to his 3006 along with his wife-Jyoti and eased was driving at a normal speed fe seated beside him and Sohan Singh he Electricity Grid, Moonak, their car 3070 (hereinafter referred to as d in the middle of the road without tutory warning. Due to the darkness, tly parked offending vehicle and the ulwinder Singh and his wife being ived the accident. The car was also han Singh’s statement, FIR No.138 ice Station Moonak under Sections of the offending vehicle. Thereafter, representatives of the deceased, the sation to the legal representatives of the offending vehicle to be liable to Hence, the insurance company filed fastened upon it and cross-objections claimants seeking enhancement of nder Singh and his wife, Jyoti. sake ght of to his ti and speed Singh ir car to as ithout ness, d the being s also o.138 ctions after, d, the es of ble to filed ctions nt of PANKAJ KUMAR 2025.11.21 15:12 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh XOBJC-278-CII FAO-3180-2016 3. Lea 2016 and FAO- issue no.1 while negligent in caus driving the car w the road, as is ev Tribunal had wro the deceased, wh parents are the c towards persona applied an incorr in a case where t be based on the entitled to file c law. In this reg Bench of this Co 643. Lastly, it injured person h must be attribute the judgments pa v. Prominent Ind Vs. Oriental Insu 4. Lear contended that th the offending ve CII-2016 (O&M) & -4- 2016(O&M) Learned counsel for the appellant-ins -3193-2016 contended that the lea while holding that Hansraj, the drive n causing the accident whereas the dec car when he collided with a stationa s is evident from the FIR (supra). It wa wrongly made a deduction of 1/3 ed, whereas, since deceased’s wife als e the claimants, a deduction of one h ersonal expenses. It was further con incorrect multiplier by considering th here the parents are the claimants, th on their age. It was also contended file claim petition seeking compensa is regard, reliance was placed upon his Court in Rajinder Pal Vs. Jaswan ly, it was contended that when a ve rson hits a stationary vehicle from b tributed to the deceased/injured. In th nts passed by the Hon’ble Supreme C t Industries & Ors., CA No. 1088 of Insurance Company Limited and o Learned counsel for the respon that the learned Tribunal had rightly ing vehicle, was negligent in causing insurance company in FAO-3180 the learned Tribunal erred in deciding driver of the offending vehicle was the deceased himself was negligent in tationary truck parked on the side of was further urged that the learned 1/3rd towards personal expenses of ife also died in the accident and the one half ought to have been made contended that the Tribunal had ring the age of the deceased, whereas nts, the appropriate multiplier should tended that parents-in-law were not pensation for death of daughter-in upon the judgment by a Coordinate swant Singh (1999) 1 RCR (Civil) n a vehicle driven by a deceased or rom behind, contributory negligence . In this regard reliance is placed on eme Court in Usha Rajkhova & Ors. 88 of 2008 and Raj Rani and others nd others (2009) 13 SCC 654. respondents/cross-objectors/claimants ightly held that Hansraj, the driver of causing the accident. However, it is 3180- iding was ent in ide of arned ses of d the made d ereas hould e not in- dinate ivil) ed or gence ed on Ors. hers mants ver of , it is PANKAJ KUMAR 2025.11.21 15:12 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh XOBJC-278-CII FAO-3180-2016 submitted that t deceased Kulwin and evidence pro urged that the Tr the law laid dow multiplier for a award compensat the compensation 5. As re contended that Rs.6500/- per m training and earn erred in treating legal position tha personal expense the family. It is f of 17, whereas th Sarla Verma (su 18. The learned and affection, los 6. To re regard to attribut the cross-objecto not step into the alleged contribut CII-2016 (O&M) & -5- 2016(O&M) that the Tribunal wrongly and ille ulwinder Singh at Rs.6500/- per mo proving that he was earning Rs.15 the Tribunal erred in applying a multi d down in Sarla Verma v. DTC (200 for a 22-year-old deceased falls at 1 pensation towards love and affection a nsation deserves to be enhanced. As regards computation of compensa that the learned Tribunal erred in per month, despite clear evidence th d earning Rs.15,000/- per month. It is eating her as an unskilled labourer a ion that in the case of the death of a ho xpenses is to be applied, as she contr . It is further submitted that the Tribun reas the deceased was 22 years old an (supra), the appropriate multiplier arned Tribunal also failed to award a on, loss of estate, or transportation of t To rebut the argument of learned c ttribution of contributory negligence, bjectors/claimants submitted that driv to the witness box, who was the be ntributory negligence of the deceased d illegally assessed the income of er month, despite specific pleadings 15,000/- per month. It is further multiplier of 17, whereas, in view of (2009) 6 SCC 121, the appropriate ls at 18. The Tribunal also failed to ction and loss of estate, and therefore pensation qua deceased-Jyoti, it was red in assessing her income to be nce that she was imparting stitching . It is urged that the learned Tribunal urer and also overlooked the settled of a housewife, no deduction towards contributes multifaceted services to ibunal wrongly applied a multiplier old and, as per the law laid down in ltiplier for the age group of 21-25 is ard any compensation towards love on of the dead body. rned counsel for the appellant with gence, learned counsel appearing for at driver of the offending vehicle did the best person to depose about the eased in driving his car and causing e of dings urther ew of priate led to refore it was to be ching bunal ettled wards ces to tiplier wn in 25 is love with g for le did ut the using PANKAJ KUMAR 2025.11.21 15:12 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh XOBJC-278-CII FAO-3180-2016 the accident, thus he placed relianc Court in FAO N Limited Vs. Poon 7. I hav paper book as we 8. As re insurance comp towards the dece reject the same. namely Hans Ra that the deceased caution to avoid received injuries insurance compa negligence of dec 9. As r for the appellant compensation on sub-section 1 of a female Hindu Section 16 viz; f any pre-deceased of the husband. I same accident an CII-2016 (O&M) & -6- 2016(O&M) t, thus, no liability can be fastened upo reliance upon the judgment passed b AO No.6400 of 2023 titled as Unit Poonam Devi and others and other c I have heard learned counsel for the as well as case laws cited with their a As regards the argument raised by lea company with regard to attributio e deceased namely Kulwinder, this Co . Admittedly, in the present case, ns Raj did not step into the witness ceased was also negligent in driving avoid the accident. Rather, the testim juries in the accident, has gone unrebu company has failed to lead any ev of deceased-Kulwinder Singh. As regards the issue of quantum, th ellant-insurance company that the pa ion on account of death of daughter- 1 of Section 15 of the Hindu Succes indu dying intestate shall devolve ac viz; firstly upon the sons and daugh ceased son or daughter) and the husban and. In the present case, the husband ent and there was no child, thus, the upon the deceased. In this regard, ssed by a Coordinate Bench of this United India Insurance Company other connected cases on 04.11.2024. for the parties and have perused the their able assistance. by learned counsel for the appellant ribution of contributory negligence his Court does not find any merit and t case, driver of the offending vehicle itness box to corroborate the factum driving his car and did not take due testimony of CW2 Sohan Singh, who unrebutted on record. The appellant any evidence to prove contributory um, the argument of learned counsel the parents-in-law are not entitled to -in-law is also untenable. As per uccession Act, 1956, the property of lve according to the rules set out in daughters (including the children of husband and secondly, upon the heirs sband of the deceased also died in the s, the parents-in-law, being the heir gard, f this any 2024. d the llant- gence it and ehicle ctum e due , who llant- utory unsel led to s per rty of out in en of heirs in the heirs PANKAJ KUMAR 2025.11.21 15:12 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh XOBJC-278-CII FAO-3180-2016 of husband are fortified by a Company Ltd. V 10. Now opinion that the Kulwinder Singh formula laid dow (2009) 6 SCC 12 16 SCC 680, if f 1/3rd is made tow dependency in bo loss of consortiu in terms of Pran of deceased-Ku +Rs.18,000/- eac loss of love an Rs.14,90,472/- expenses+Rs.48, 11. The shall also attract of realization an both the cases. 12. In vie the learned Trib CII-2016 (O&M) & -7- 2016(O&M) entitled to claim compensation. T Coordinate Bench of this Cour td. Vs. Parlad Rai and others 2010 ( Now on the issue of quantum of com at the learned Tribunal has rightly Singh and Jyoti as Rs.6500/- per mo id down by the Hon’ble Supreme Co C 121 and National Insurance Co. if future prospectus of 40% is add ade towards personal expenses, multi y in both cases would come to Rs.13,1 sortium, loss of estate and funeral exp Pranay Sethi’s case (supra), the amo Kulwinder Singh would be R each for loss of estate and funer ove and affection) and for death (Rs.13,10,472/- + Rs.18,000/- eac Rs.48,000/-x3 for loss of love and affe The amount over and above as aw attract interest @9% per annum from ion and the same shall be distributed In view of the aforesaid facts and ci d Tribunal in both cases are partl The aforesaid view has also been Court in United India Insurance 10 (4) RCR (Civil) 153. of compensation, this Court is of the taken incomes of the deceased er month each. Keeping in view the me Court in Sarla Verma Vs. DTC Co. Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi (2017) is added in the income, deduction of , multiplier of 18 is applied, loss of 13,10,472/- each. If components of ral expenses are to be added thereon, he amount of compensation for death be Rs.14,42,472/- (Rs.13,10,472/ funeral expenses+Rs.48,000/-x2 for death of deceased-Jyoti would be each for loss of estate and funeral d affection). as awarded by the learned Tribunal from the date of petition till the date ibuted equally amongst claimants in and circumstances, awards passed by partly modified to the extent of been nce of the ased- w the TC 17) ion of ss of nts of reon, death ,472/- for ld be neral bunal e date in ed by nt of PANKAJ KUMAR 2025.11.21 15:12 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh XOBJC-278-CII FAO-3180-2016 computation of company are dism 13. Misc. November 19, 20 Pankaj* CII-2016 (O&M) & -8- 2016(O&M) of compensation. Resultantly, a re dismissed and the cross-objections a Misc. Application(s) pending, if any, (AMAR , 2025 Whether speaking/reaso Whether reportable tly, appeals filed by the insurance tions are allowed in above terms. if any, also stand disposed of. MARINDER SINGH GREWAL) JUDGE g/reasoned : Yes/No : Yes/No rance PANKAJ KUMAR 2025.11.21 15:12 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh