FAO- 3970-2010

-1-

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH

FAO- 3970-2010

Reserved on: 15.09.2025

Date of decision: 15.10.2025

Indra Devi and others ......Appellants

Vs.

Rakesh Singh Panwar and others ......Respondents

CORAM: HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA

Present: Mr. Ramesh Sindhar, Advocate

for the appellants.

Mr. Sandeep Suri, Advocate and

for the respondents.

SUDEEPTI SHARMA J.

1. The present appeal has been preferred for setting aside the

award dated 08.05.2010 passed in the claim petition filed under Section 166

& 144 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, by the learned Motor Accident

Claims Tribunal, Karnal (for short, ‘the Tribunal’), whereby, claim petition

filed by the appellants/claimants, was dismissed.

FACTS NOT IN DISPUTE

2. The brief facts of the case as per award dated 08.05.2010 are

that on 25.09.2008 claimant - Indra Wati alongwith her husband Puran

Chand (since deceased), Smt. Devi wife of Parkash, Rajni and Suman

daughters of Parkash went to meet Hans Raj son of Hari Singh of village

Kalsi; that on three 26.09.2008 aforesaid Hans Raj boarded them in a three

wheeler bearing registration No.HR-45-2967 from village Kalsi for Bus

Stand Nilokheri and said Hans Raj was coming behind them; that at about

FAO- 3970-2010

-2-

9.30 AM, when they reached near Bus Stand chowk, Nilokheri and when the

three wheeler was in the process of crossing the road to go to Bus Stand,

Nilokheri, a white colour car bearing registration No.RJ-14-CF-0054, being

driven by respondent No.1 in rash, negligent, careless and in zig-zag manner,

without observing traffic rules came from Karnal side and hit the three

wheeler. As a result of which, result occupants of the three wheeler received

serious, multiple and grievous injuries on various parts of their bodies. The

car driver fled away from the spot alongwith his vehicle towards Pipli. The

accident took place due to sole rash and negligence of the car driver that

regarding this accident, FIR No.257 (Ex.PW3/C) was got registered against

Rakesh Singh Panwar, respondent No.1, in police station Butana by eye

witness Hans Raj (PW1); that Azad Coach Pvt Ltd, respondent No.2, is the

owner of the car and the car was duly insured with ICICI Lombard General

Insurance Company Limited, respondent No.3, therefore, all the three

respondents are jointly and severally liable to compensate the claimants.

3. Upon notice of the claim petition, the respondents appeared and

filed their separate replies denying the factum of accident/compensation.

4. From the pleadings of the parties, the learned Tribunal framed

the following issues:-

“(1) Whether the accident in question took place on

26.9.2008 due to rash and negligent driving of car

bearing No.RJ-14-CF-0054, driven by respondent No.1,

Rakesh Singh in which Puran Chand had died, as

alleged? OPP

FAO- 3970-2010

-3-

(2) If issues No.1 is proved, whether the claimants are

entitled to any compensation, if so how much and from

whom?

(3) Whether the vehicle in question was being driven in

violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance

policy, if so its effect? OPR

(4) Relief.”

5. After taking into consideration the pleadings and the evidence

on record, the learned Tribunal dismissed the claim petition. Hence, the

present appeal.

SUBMISSIONS OF LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES

6. The learned counsel for the appellants/claimants contends that

the learned Tribunal erred in dismissing the claim petition only on the

ground that the appellants/claimants have failed to prove that accident in

question occurred due to rash and negligent driving of offending vehicle.

Therefore, he prays that the present appeal be allowed.

7. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent-Insurance Company,

however, vehemently argues on the lines of the award dated 08.05.2010 and

submits that the claim petition has rightly been dismissed by the learned

Tribunal. Therefore, he prays for dismissal of the appeal.

8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the

whole record of this case.

9. The relevant portion of the award reads as under:-

“9. Under this issue, there is no dispute before me

that FIR Ex.PW3/C was registered against Rakesh Singh,

respondent No.1 for this accident by eye witnees Hans

FAO- 3970-2010

-4-

Raj PW-1. The police after due investigations had

submitted the challan against him and he is now facing

trial for this accident before the criminal court. It is so

proved by the evidence of Suresh Kumar, Additional

Ahlmad (PW3), as well as from documents Ex.PW3/A,

certified copy of challan under section 173 of Cr.P.C. and

Ex.PW3/C, certified copy of FIR. It is ofcourse prima

facie proof of rash and negligent driving of Suresh

Kumar, respondent No.1; but the same has to be proved

independently before this Tribunal.

10. . In order to positively prove rash and negligent

driving of car driver Rakesh Singh, respondent no.1 the

claimants have examined eye witness and author of the

FIR viz Hans Raj as PW1. He has fully testified for the

pleaded case of the claimant as above noted by way of his

affidavit Ex. PW1/A that on 26.09.2008, he as well as

Puran Chand (since deceased), his wife Indra Devi,

claimant, Smt. Devi wife of Shri Parkash, Rajni and

Suman two children of Shri Parkash boarded a three

wheeler, from village kalsi for bus stand Nilokheri and he

was also coming behind them; that when they reached

near Bus Stand Chowk, Nilokheri, at about 9.30 PM(sic)

and when the said three wheeler was in the process of

crossing the G.T.Road, to go to Bus Stand, Nilokheri, a

white colour car bearing registration No.RJ-14-CF-0054,

being driven by respondent No.1 in a rash and negligent

manner came from Karnal side and his against the three

wheeler. In cross examination, he has also stated that the

accident had taken place in between the highway and that

the car driver hit the three wheeler all of a sudden. He

has also admitted that the deceased was his close

relative. Even claimant Raj Kumar PW2 has specifically

FAO- 3970-2010

-5-

admitted that the accident took place when this three

wheeler had tried to cross the G.T.Road. It is also so

specifically pleaded case of the claimants.

11. It was the duty of the driver of the three

wheeler, to see the vehicles moving on the road and then

to cross the road after fully satisfying that the road was

clear for passing. In the circumstances, learned counsel

for the respondents has rightly cited Ravinder Kaur Vs.

Haryana State 2000 (2) RCR (Civil) 746 wherein it is

held that it was the duty of the driver of vehicle entering

on the Highway from approach link road/path, to take all

precautions and will enter Highway only when there is no

likelihood on any obstructions due to his entry to any

vehicle running on the Highway. It was further held in

this authority that a driver taking sudden entry on a

scooter loaded with a gas cylinder and a pillion rider,

having not full control on the vehicle and without any

regard to the heavy vehicles crossing the entry point on

the Highway, will not be entitled to any compensation. He

has also cited Rita Sharma Vs. Pan Chand, 1997 (4) RCR

(Civil) 98 wherein it is held that person entering the main

road has to give pass first to a vehicle running on the

main road.

12. Therefore, it is fully established that the

accident took place due to sole rash and negligent driving

of the driver of the three wheeler. In view of this evidence

of the claimant, there was no need for the respondents to

lead any evidence in their defence.

13. Resultantly, it is proved to the hilt that the

accident took place due to sole negligence on the part of

the driver of the three wheeler resulting into death of

Puran Chand and not because of any fault on the part of

FAO- 3970-2010

-6-

car driver Rakesh Singh Panwar, respondent No.1.

Therefore, this issue is hereby accordingly answered

against the claimants and in favour of the respondents.”

10. A perusal of the impugned award would reveal that the learned

Tribunal has fallen in error in dismissing the claim petition filed by the

claimants/appellants on the ground that rash and negligent driving of the

offending vehicle was not proved. The record unmistakably demonstrates

otherwise.

11. The testimony of PW-1 Hans Raj, who is not only an

eyewitness but also the author of the FIR, assumes paramount importance.

He categorically narrated the sequence of events leading to the accident in

his affidavit (Ex. PW-1/A) and his deposition before the learned Tribunal.

His version remained wholly consistent with the statement recorded in the

FIR (Ex. PW-3/C). He clearly deposed that the accident occurred solely due

to the rash and negligent driving of the offending car (bearing registration

No. RJ-14-CF-0054) by respondent No. 1. Despite extensive cross-

examination, his testimony remained firm, cogent and unimpeached.

Significantly, in his cross-examination he categorically denied the

suggestion that the accident was caused due to the negligence of the three-

wheeler driver. Such unimpeachable ocular evidence could not have been

brushed aside without cogent reasoning, yet the learned Tribunal disbelieved

it on tenuous grounds.

12. Further corroboration emanates from the testimony of PW-3

Suresh Kumar, Criminal Ahlmad, who proved that a challan (Ex. PW-3/A)

had been filed against respondent No. 1 pursuant to the FIR. It is a settled

FAO- 3970-2010

-7-

proposition that registration of FIR followed by submission of challan

against a driver is a strong prima facie indication of his culpability in

causing the accident. These documents, taken together with the testimony of

PW-1, sufficiently establish rash and negligent driving on the part of

respondent No. 1. The contrary finding of the learned Tribunal is thus

unsustainable in the eyes of law.

13. The contention advanced by learned counsel for the respondent-

insurance company, that it was the duty of the three-wheeler driver to

exercise due care while entering the highway and that the accident occurred

due to his negligence, is wholly devoid of merit. The record contains no iota

of evidence to suggest contributory negligence on the part of the three-

wheeler driver. On the contrary, PW-1 explicitly deposed that the three-

wheeler driver had taken due care before entering the road. The site plan

(Ex. PW-3/B) also supports this version. The learned Tribunal, instead of

appreciating this evidence, sought to pick holes in the case of

appellants/claimants without any substantive material, thereby rendering its

finding perverse.

14. Equally untenable is the submission that the driver of the

offending car having been acquitted in the connected criminal case,

negligence cannot be attributed to him in these proceedings. It is trite law,

reiterated in a catena of precedents, that findings of the criminal court do not

bind the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal on the issue of negligence. The

rationale is evident while criminal proceedings demand proof beyond

reasonable doubt, in claim proceedings under Motors Vehicle Act negligence

FAO- 3970-2010

-8-

is determined on the touchstone of preponderance of probabilities. An

acquittal in a criminal case therefore does not ipso facto absolve the driver of

liability. Reference may usefully be made to the decision of this Court in

FAO-84-2007 titled as decided on “National Ins. Co. Ltd. V/S Gurnam

Kaur And Ors.”, wherein it was categorically held that acquittal in a

criminal case is not conclusive in motor accident claims, and the tribunal is

duty-bound to independently assess negligence on the basis of material

before it.

15. Applying the above principles, this Court is of the considered

view that the claimants/appellants have successfully discharged their burden

of proving, on the preponderance of probabilities, that the accident occurred

due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by respondent

No. 1. The findings recorded by the learned Tribunal are therefore erroneous,

unsustainable in law, and liable to be set aside.

16. With respect to determination of compensation, the record

contains evidence of hospital admission, the deceased-Puran Chand earning

and expenses incurred for medical treatment. Consequently, this Court shall

adjudicate the compensation in accordance with the documented evidence on

the record.

17. A perusal of the award reveals that the deceased-Puran Chand

was stated to be working as Mason and his monthly income was asserted to

be Rs.9,000/- per month, however, no document has been produced in this

regard. Consequently, his income is to be assessed as Rs.4,200/- per month

FAO- 3970-2010

-9-

in accordance with minimum wages prescribed for skilled labour in the State

of Haryana.

18. A perusal of the award reveals that the age of deceased as per

post-mortem report Ex.P-1 at the time of accident was 60 years, therefore,

learned Tribunal has rightly assessed aged of deceased-Puran Chand at the

time of accident as 60 years.

19. A  perusal   of   the   award   further   reveals   that   compensation

awarded by the learned Tribunal under the heads- Loss of Estate, Funeral

Expenses and loss of consortium is on lower side and no amount is awarded

for future prospects as per settled law. Therefore, the claimants are held

entitled to compensation as calculated below:-

SETTLED LAW ON COMPENSATION

20. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma Vs. Delhi

Transport Corporation and Another [(2009) 6 Supreme Court Cases 121],

laid down the law on assessment of compensation and the relevant paras of

the same are 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, the general practice is to apply

standardised deductions. Having a considered several

subsequent decisions of this Court, we are of the view that

where the deceased was married, the 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 members exceeds six.

31. Where the deceased was a bachelor and the claimants are

the parents, the deduction follows a different principle. In

regard to bachelors, normally, 50% is deducted as personal and

living expenses, because it is assumed that a bachelor would

tend to spend more on himself. Even otherwise, there is also the

FAO- 3970-2010

-10-

possibility of his getting married in a short time, in which event

the contribution to the parent(s) and siblings is likely to be cut

drastically. Further, subject to evidence to the contrary, the

father is likely to have his own income and will not be

considered as a dependant and the mother alone will be

considered as a dependant. In the absence of evidence to the

contrary, brothers and sisters will not be considered as

dependants, because they will either be independent and

earning, or married, or be dependent on the father.

32. Thus even if the deceased is survived by parents and

siblings, only d the mother would be considered to be a

dependant, and 50% would be treated as the personal and

living expenses of the bachelor and 50% as the contribution to

the family. However, where the family of the bachelor is large

and dependent on the income of the deceased, as in a case

where he has a widowed mother and large number of younger

non-earning sisters or brothers, his personal and living

expenses may be restricted to one-third and contribution to the

family will be taken as two-third.

* * * * *

42. We therefore hold that the multiplier to be used should be as

mentioned in Column (4) of the table above (prepared by

applying Susamma Thomas³, Trilok Chandra and Charlie),

which starts with an operative multiplier of 18 (for the age

groups of 15 to 20 and 21 to 25 years), reduced by one unit for

every five years, that is M-17 for 26 to 30 years, M-16 for 31 to

35 years, M-15 for 36 to 40 years, M-14 for 41 to 45 years, and

M-13 for 46 to 50 years, then reduced by two units for every

five years, that is, M-11 for 51 to 55 years, M-9 for 56 to 60

years, M-7 for 61 to 65 years and M-5 for 66 to 70 years.

21. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance

Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors. [(2017) 16 SCC 680] has clarified

the law under Sections 166, 163-A and 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988,

on the following aspects:-

(A) Deduction of personal and living expenses to determine

multiplicand;

(B) Selection of multiplier depending on age of deceased;

(C) Age of deceased on basis for applying multiplier;

FAO- 3970-2010

-11-

(D) Reasonable figures on conventional heads, namely, loss

of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses, with

escalation;

(E) Future prospects for all categories of persons and for

different ages: with permanent job; self-employed or fixed

salary.

The relevant portion of the judgment is reproduced as under:-

“52. As far as the conventional heads are concerned,

we find it difficult to agree with the view expressed in

Rajesh². It has granted Rs.25,000 towards funeral

expenses, Rs 1,00,000 towards loss of consortium and Rs

1,00,000 towards loss of care and guidance for minor

children. The head relating to loss of care and minor

children does not exist. Though Rajesh refers to Santosh

Devi, it does not seem to follow the same. The

conventional and traditional heads, needless to say,

cannot be determined on percentage basis because that

would not be an acceptable criterion. Unlike

determination of income, the said heads have to be

quantified. Any quantification must have a reasonable

foundation. There can be no dispute over the fact that

price index, fall in bank interest, escalation of rates in

many a field have to be noticed. The court cannot remain

oblivious to the same. There has been a thumb rule in this

aspect. Otherwise, there will be extreme difficulty in

determination of the same and unless the thumb rule is

applied, there will be immense variation lacking any kind

of consistency as a consequence of which, the orders

passed by the tribunals and courts are likely to be

unguided. Therefore, we think it seemly to fix reasonable

sums. It seems to us that reasonable figures on

conventional heads, namely, loss of estate, loss of

consortium and funeral expenses should be Rs.15,000,

Rs.40,000 and Rs.15,000 respectively. The principle of

revisiting the said heads is an acceptable principle. But

the revisit should not be fact-centric or quantum-centric.

We think that it would be condign that the amount that we

have quantified should be enhanced on percentage basis

in every three years and the enhancement should be at

the rate of 10% in a span of three years. We are disposed

to hold so because that will bring in consistency in

respect of those heads.

* * * *

59.3. While determining the income, an addition of 50%

of actual salary to the income of the deceased towards

FAO- 3970-2010

-12-

future prospects, where the deceased had a permanent

job and was below the age of 40 years, should be made.

The addition should be 30%, if the age of the deceased

was between 40 to 50 years. In case the deceased was

between the age of 50 to 60 years, the addition should be

15%. Actual salary should be read as actual salary less

tax.

59.4. In case the deceased was self-employed (or) on a

fixed salary, an addition of 40% of the established

income should be the warrant where the deceased was

below the age of 40 years. An addition of 25% where the

deceased was between the age of 40 to 50 years and 10%

where the deceased was between the age of 50 to 60

years should be regarded as the necessary method of

computation. The established income means the income

minus the tax component.

59.5. For determination of the multiplicand, the

deduction for personal and living expenses, the tribunals

and the courts shall be guided by paras 30 to 32 of Sarla

Verma⁴ which we have reproduced hereinbefore.

59.6. The selection of multiplier shall be as indicated in

the Table in Sarla Verma¹ read with para 42 of that

judgment.

59.7. The age of the deceased should be the basis for

applying the multiplier.

59.8. Reasonable figures on conventional heads, namely,

loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses

should be Rs 15,000, Rs 40,000 and Rs 15,000

respectively. The aforesaid amounts should be enhanced

at the rate of 10% in every three years.”

22. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Magma General

Insurance Company Limited Vs. Nanu Ram alias Chuhru Ram &

Others [2018(18) SCC 130] after considering Sarla Verma (supra) and

Pranay Sethi (Supra) has settled the law regarding consortium. Relevant

paras of the same are reproduced as under:-

“21. A Constitution Bench of this Court in Pranay Sethi²

dealt with the various heads under which compensation

is to be awarded in a death case. One of these heads is

loss of consortium. In legal parlance, "consortium" is a

FAO- 3970-2010

-13-

compendious term which encompasses "spousal

consortium", "parental consortium", and "filial

consortium". The right to consortium would include the

company, care, help, comfort, guidance, solace and

affection of the deceased, which is a loss to his family.

With respect to a spouse, it would include sexual

relations with the deceased spouse.

21.1. Spousal consortium is generally defined as rights

pertaining to the relationship of a husband-wife which

allows compensation to the surviving spouse for loss of

"company, society, cooperation, affection, and aid of the

other in every conjugal relation".

21.2. Parental consortium is granted to the child upon

the premature death of a parent, for loss of "parental aid,

protection, affection, society, discipline, guidance and

training".

21.3. Filial consortium is the right of the parents to

compensation in the case of an accidental death of a

child. An accident leading to the death of a child causes

great shock and agony to the parents and family of the

deceased. The greatest agony for a parent is to lose their

child during their lifetime. Children are valued for their

love, affection, companionship and their role in the

family unit.

22. Consortium is a special prism reflecting changing

norms about the status and worth of actual relationships.

Modern jurisdictions world-over have recognised that the

value of a child's consortium far exceeds the economic

value of the compensation awarded in the case of the

death of a child. Most jurisdictions therefore permit

parents to be awarded compensation under loss of

FAO- 3970-2010

-14-

consortium on the death of a child. The amount awarded

to the parents is a compensation for loss of the love,

affection, care and companionship of the deceased child.

23. The Motor Vehicles Act is a beneficial legislation

aimed at providing relief to the victims or their families,

in cases of genuine claims. In case where a parent has

lost their minor child, or unmarried son or daughter, the

parents are entitled to be awarded loss of consortium

under the head of filial consortium. Parental consortium

is awarded to children who lose their parents in motor

vehicle accidents under the Act. A few High Courts have

awarded compensation on this count. However, there was

no clarity with respect to the principles on which

compensation could be awarded on loss of filial

consortium.

24. The amount of compensation to be awarded as

consortium will be governed by the principles of

awarding compensation under "loss of consortium" as

laid down in Pranay Sethi². In the present case, we deem

it appropriate to award the father and the sister of the

deceased, an amount of Rs 40,000 each for loss of filial

consortium.

RELIEF

23. In view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in

the above referred to judgments, the present appeal is allowed and the award

dated 05.09.2006 is set aside. The appellants/claimants are held entitled to

the compensation as per the calculations made here-under:-

Sr. No. Heads Compensation Awarded

1 Monthly Income Rs.4,200/-

2 Future prospects @ 10% Rs.420/- (10% of 4,200)

FAO- 3970-2010

-15-

3 Deduction towards personal

expenditure 1/3

Rs.1,540/- {(4,200+420) X 1/3}

4 Total Income Rs.3,080/- (4,620 – 1,540)

5 Multiplier 9

6 Annual Dependency Rs.3,32,640/- (3,080X 9 X 12)

7 Loss of Estate Rs.18,150/-

8 Funeral Expenses Rs.18,150/-

9 Loss of Consortium

Spousal : Rs. 48,000 x 1

Parental : Rs. 48,000 x 2

Rs. 1,45,200/- (48,400 X 3)

Total Compensation Rs.5,14,140/-

24. So far as Issue No.3 i.e. w hether the vehicle in question was

being driven in violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy,

if so its effect, is concerned, the learned Tribunal has decided the issue in

favour of the driver and owner of the offending vehicle i.e. respondent Nos.1

and 2 & against the Insurance Company. Meaning thereby, respondent-

Insurance Company is held liable to pay the compensation.

25. So far as the interest part is concerned, as held by Hon’ble

Supreme Court in Dara Singh @ Dhara Banjara Vs. Shyam Singh Varma

2019 ACJ 3176 and R.Valli and Others VS. Tamil Nadu State Transport

Corporation (2022) 5 Supreme Court Cases 107, the appellants-claimants

are granted the interest @ 9% per annum on the amount of compensation

from the date of filing of claim petition till the date of its realization.

26. Respondent No.3-Insurance Company is directed to deposit the

amount of compensation along with interest with the Tribunal within a

period of two months from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment. The

FAO- 3970-2010

-16-

Tribunal is further directed to disburse the amount of compensation along

with interest equally in the accounts of the claimants/appellants. The

claimants/appellants are directed to furnish their bank account details to the

Tribunal.

27. Pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of.

15.10.2025 (SUDEEPTI SHARMA)

Sahil JUDGE

Whether speaking/non-speaking : Speaking

Whether reportable     : Yes/No