FAO No.6206 of IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO LTD. Vs SURILA KUNDU AND OTHERS CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJ Present: Mr. for the appellant. Mr. Vipul Sharma, Advocate for respondent Nos.1 to 3. HARKESH MANUJA, J. [1]. By way of present appeal, challenge has been laid to an award dated 21.07.2010 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, (hereinafter to be referred as “learned Tribunal”), whereby Rs.13,29,500/- was awarde along with interest @ 7.5% per annum [2]. Briefly stating, r filed claim petition before the learned Tribunal praying for grant of compensation to the tune of Rs.50,00,000/ per annum on account of death of Jagdish Kumar in a motor vehicular accident which took place on 05.09.2007, while alleging rash and n respondent No.4/driver. [3]. Learn record found that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of of 2010 (O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No. Date of Reserve: Date of Decision: NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO LTD. SURILA KUNDU AND OTHERS HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJ Mr. R.C. Gupta, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Vipul Sharma, Advocate for respondent Nos.1 to 3. **** HARKESH MANUJA, J. By way of present appeal, challenge has been laid to an award dated 21.07.2010 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, (hereinafter to be referred as “learned Tribunal”), whereby was awarded as compensation to respondent Nos with interest @ 7.5% per annum. Briefly stating, respondent Nos.1 to 3 being dependents of deceased filed claim petition before the learned Tribunal praying for grant of compensation Rs.50,00,000/- (Rupees Fifty Lakhs only) along with interest @ 12% per annum on account of death of Jagdish Kumar in a motor vehicular accident which took place on 05.09.2007, while alleging rash and n o.4/driver. Learned Tribunal after appraisal of evidence led by the parties and the record found that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.6206 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Reserve: 30.04.2025 Date of Decision: 06.05.2025 ......Appellant(s) ....Respondent(s) HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJA By way of present appeal, challenge has been laid to an award dated 21.07.2010 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chandigarh (hereinafter to be referred as “learned Tribunal”), whereby an amount of tion to respondent Nos.1 to 3/claimants .1 to 3 being dependents of deceased filed claim petition before the learned Tribunal praying for grant of compensation (Rupees Fifty Lakhs only) along with interest @ 12% per annum on account of death of Jagdish Kumar in a motor vehicular accident which took place on 05.09.2007, while alleging rash and negligent driving of ed Tribunal after appraisal of evidence led by the parties and the record found that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of 1 By way of present appeal, challenge has been laid to an award dated Chandigarh an amount of .1 to 3/claimants .1 to 3 being dependents of deceased filed claim petition before the learned Tribunal praying for grant of compensation (Rupees Fifty Lakhs only) along with interest @ 12% per annum on account of death of Jagdish Kumar in a motor vehicular accident egligent driving of ed Tribunal after appraisal of evidence led by the parties and the record found that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of MOHMED ATIK 2025.05.15 15:46 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment FAO No.6206 of respondent No.4/driver and held appellant respondent Nos. compensation in the following manner: S.No 1. 2. 3. 4. [4]. Being aggrieved against the award dated 21.07.2010, the present appeal has been preferred by the appellant/ on the issue of negligence reduction of compensation as awarded by the learned Tribunal. [5]. Learned c the learned Tribunal failed to appreciate available on record in the shape of his affidavit stated that offending truck came on the wrong side of the road whereas in the FIR registered struck against each other from the opposite side and as such present being a case of head on collision, the absolute negligence of truck was wrongly recorded. He further argued that learned Tribunal failed to consider the fact that loan account was in the name of of the deceased while considering the said loan being paid by him was wrongly of 2010 (O&M) o.4/driver and held appellant/Insurance Company Nos.4 and 5 jointly and severa compensation in the following manner: - S.No Heads of Claim Loss of dependency Loss of consortium Funeral expenses Loss of Estate Total Being aggrieved against the award dated 21.07.2010, the present appeal has been preferred by the appellant/Insurance on the issue of negligence of the offending vehicle reduction of compensation as awarded by the learned Tribunal. Learned counsel for the appellant/I the learned Tribunal failed to appreciate the material contradiction in the available on record in the shape of testimony of eyewitness Baggu Khan his affidavit stated that offending truck came on the wrong side of the road the FIR registered at his instance gainst each other from the opposite side and as such present being a case of head on collision, the absolute negligence of truck was wrongly recorded. He further argued that learned Tribunal failed to consider the fact that loan account was in the name of deceased and respondent No.2, thus, the assessment of income of the deceased while considering the said loan being paid by him was wrongly /Insurance Company as well as 4 and 5 jointly and severally liable, thereby awarding Heads of Claim Amount (in Rs) Rs.13,20,000/- Rs.5,000/- Rs.2,000/- Rs.2,500/- Rs.13,29,500/- Being aggrieved against the award dated 21.07.2010, the present nsurance Company for its setting aside of the offending vehicle or in the alternative for reduction of compensation as awarded by the learned Tribunal. Insurance Company submitted that the material contradiction in the evidence testimony of eyewitness Baggu Khan, who in his affidavit stated that offending truck came on the wrong side of the road at his instance, it was stated that both vehicles gainst each other from the opposite side and as such present being a case of head on collision, the absolute negligence of truck was wrongly recorded. He further argued that learned Tribunal failed to consider the fact that loan account o.2, thus, the assessment of income of the deceased while considering the said loan being paid by him was wrongly 2 as well as lly liable, thereby awarding Amount (in Rs) Being aggrieved against the award dated 21.07.2010, the present ompany for its setting aside or in the alternative for submitted that evidence who in his affidavit stated that offending truck came on the wrong side of the road it was stated that both vehicles gainst each other from the opposite side and as such present being a case of head on collision, the absolute negligence of truck was wrongly recorded. He further argued that learned Tribunal failed to consider the fact that loan account o.2, thus, the assessment of income of the deceased while considering the said loan being paid by him was wrongly MOHMED ATIK 2025.05.15 15:46 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment FAO No.6206 of done and as such the income asse of compensation amount. [6]. Per c argued that the learned Tribunal erred to ignore the income tax return of the deceased while assessing his income and as such the compensation amount was liable to be enhanced. He also submitted that the involvement of the offending vehicle as well as the factum of negligence of its driver was aptly proved on record from the statement of eyewitness Baggu Khan liable to be dismissed. Lastly, he concluded compensation under co enhanced. [7]. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the paper book of the case. I do not find force in the arguments advanced by learned Counsel for the appellant [8]. Perusal of record reveals that FAO No.725 of 2011 has already been preferred by the respondent Nos.1 to 3/claimants compensation awarded by the Tribunal notice of this Court by either of the parties at the time of hearing. submissions made on behalf of respondent Nos.1 to 3/claimants qua quantum of compensation cannot be contributory negligence is being decided. [9]. Upon perusal of record, it can be easily traced out that undisputedly the deceased was hit by the offending vehicle driven by respondent accident was witnessed by one Nos.1 to 3/claimants as PW2. From the contents of challan (Ex.P of 2010 (O&M) done and as such the income assessed was required to be reduced thereby reduction of compensation amount. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent argued that the learned Tribunal erred to ignore the income tax return of the deceased while assessing his income and as such the compensation amount was liable to be enhanced. He also submitted that the involvement of the offending le as well as the factum of negligence of its driver was aptly proved on record from the statement of eyewitness Baggu Khan liable to be dismissed. Lastly, he concluded compensation under conventional heads being on the lower side I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the paper book of the case. I do not find force in the arguments advanced by learned Counsel for the appellant. rusal of record reveals that FAO No.725 of 2011 has already been preferred by the respondent Nos.1 to 3/claimants awarded by the Tribunal though this fact was never brought to the notice of this Court by either of the parties at the time of hearing. submissions made on behalf of respondent Nos.1 to 3/claimants qua quantum of compensation cannot be considered in the present ap contributory negligence is being decided. Upon perusal of record, it can be easily traced out that undisputedly the deceased was hit by the offending vehicle driven by respondent accident was witnessed by one Baggu Khan, who was examined by .1 to 3/claimants as PW2. From the contents of challan (Ex.P ssed was required to be reduced thereby reduction ounsel for respondent Nos.1 to 3/claimants argued that the learned Tribunal erred to ignore the income tax return of the deceased while assessing his income and as such the compensation amount was liable to be enhanced. He also submitted that the involvement of the offending le as well as the factum of negligence of its driver was aptly proved on record from the statement of eyewitness Baggu Khan and as such, present appeal was liable to be dismissed. Lastly, he concluded the arguments by submitting that nventional heads being on the lower side is also liable to be I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the paper book of the case. I do not find force in the arguments advanced by learned Counsel rusal of record reveals that FAO No.725 of 2011 has already been preferred by the respondent Nos.1 to 3/claimants with regard to enhancement of though this fact was never brought to the notice of this Court by either of the parties at the time of hearing. Therefore, the submissions made on behalf of respondent Nos.1 to 3/claimants qua quantum of present appeal. Only the question of Upon perusal of record, it can be easily traced out that undisputedly the deceased was hit by the offending vehicle driven by respondent No.4 and the who was examined by the respondent .1 to 3/claimants as PW2. From the contents of challan (Ex.P-8) it was evident 3 ssed was required to be reduced thereby reduction .1 to 3/claimants argued that the learned Tribunal erred to ignore the income tax return of the deceased while assessing his income and as such the compensation amount was liable to be enhanced. He also submitted that the involvement of the offending le as well as the factum of negligence of its driver was aptly proved on record and as such, present appeal was by submitting that also liable to be I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the paper- book of the case. I do not find force in the arguments advanced by learned Counsel rusal of record reveals that FAO No.725 of 2011 has already been with regard to enhancement of though this fact was never brought to the Therefore, the submissions made on behalf of respondent Nos.1 to 3/claimants qua quantum of Only the question of Upon perusal of record, it can be easily traced out that undisputedly o.4 and the the respondent 8) it was evident MOHMED ATIK 2025.05.15 15:46 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment FAO No.6206 of that upon investigation respondent no.4 was solely arraigned as an accused for criminal prosecution. Further, testimony of PW2 established the factum of negligent driving of respondent no.4 and the veracity of this fact could not be impeached Furthermore, the best witness in such circumstances was the dr offending vehicle i.e respondent box. Even the appellant/ respondent No.4 for cross against him coupled with the fact that neit ever made a complaint to higher police investigation or the fact that respondent present case. Accordingly, no interference is called for with the findings recorded by the learned Tribunal on the aspect of negligence of respondent [10]. The Tribunal rightly held respondent Nos. respondent Nos.1 to 3/claimants as the offending vehicle i.e Truck No.HR 2946 was insured with the appellant vide Insurance Policy Ex.R [11]. In view of the reasoned award passed by the Tribunal is made out, thus the instance of Insurance Company is hereby dismissed application(s) if any, shall also stand May 06, 2025 Atik Whether speaking/reasoned Whether reportable of 2010 (O&M) that upon investigation respondent no.4 was solely arraigned as an accused for criminal prosecution. Further, testimony of PW2 established the factum of negligent driving of respondent no.4 and the veracity of this fact could not be impeached even during his lengthy cross Furthermore, the best witness in such circumstances was the dr offending vehicle i.e respondent No.4, but he chose not to appear in the witness the appellant/Insurance Company never made an o.4 for cross-examination and, thus adverse inference could be drawn him coupled with the fact that neither appellant nor respondent ever made a complaint to higher police authorities investigation or the fact that respondent No.4 was being wrongly implicated in the present case. Accordingly, no interference is called for with the findings recorded by the learned Tribunal on the aspect of negligence of respondent The Tribunal rightly held appellant Nos.4 and 5 jointly and severally liable respondent Nos.1 to 3/claimants as the offending vehicle i.e Truck No.HR 2946 was insured with the appellant vide Insurance Policy Ex.R In view of the discussion made hereinabove, no ground in the well reasoned award passed by the Tribunal is made out, thus the instance of Insurance Company is hereby dismissed application(s) if any, shall also stand disposed of. (HARKESH MANUJA) Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No that upon investigation respondent no.4 was solely arraigned as an accused for criminal prosecution. Further, testimony of PW2 supported by his affidavit clearly established the factum of negligent driving of respondent no.4 and the veracity of even during his lengthy cross-examination. Furthermore, the best witness in such circumstances was the driver of the but he chose not to appear in the witness ompany never made any efforts to summon thus adverse inference could be drawn her appellant nor respondent Nos.4 & 5 authorities with regard to any faulty o.4 was being wrongly implicated in the present case. Accordingly, no interference is called for with the findings recorded by the learned Tribunal on the aspect of negligence of respondent No.4. appellant/Insurance Company as well as 4 and 5 jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation to respondent Nos.1 to 3/claimants as the offending vehicle i.e Truck No.HR-38 2946 was insured with the appellant vide Insurance Policy Ex.R-6. discussion made hereinabove, no ground in the well reasoned award passed by the Tribunal is made out, thus, the present appeal filed at the instance of Insurance Company is hereby dismissed. Pending miscellaneous disposed of. (HARKESH MANUJA) JUDGE Yes/No Yes/No 4 that upon investigation respondent no.4 was solely arraigned as an accused for supported by his affidavit clearly established the factum of negligent driving of respondent no.4 and the veracity of examination. iver of the but he chose not to appear in the witness y efforts to summon thus adverse inference could be drawn .4 & 5 any faulty o.4 was being wrongly implicated in the present case. Accordingly, no interference is called for with the findings recorded as well as to pay the compensation to 38-C- discussion made hereinabove, no ground in the well appeal filed at Pending miscellaneous MOHMED ATIK 2025.05.15 15:46 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment