CNR No.
HRKU01-000386-2021 1 MACP/45/2021
PRITI AND ORS. VERSUS PAPPU KUMAR AND ORS.
BEFORE JATIN GARG, PRESIDING OFFICER,
MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL,
KURUKSHETRA
Computer ID No. MACP/76/2022
CNR No. HRKU01-000468-2022
Date of Institution 20.01.2022
Date of Decision 26.03.2025
Ganga Devi, aged about 60 years, widow of late Balbir Singh, resident of
Village Shamsipur, Post Office Kirmach, District Kurukshetra.
...Claimant-petitioner
Versus
1. Sachin Chaudhary son of Labhu Ram, resident of Village Dhanaka,
Tehsil Nowshehra, District Rajouri;
(Driver of offending motorcycle bearing registration No.JK02CK-
1586)
2. Ajay Singh son of Raghuvinder Singh, resident of L.No.5, Digiana,
Near Water Tank, Digiana, District Jammu.
(Owner of offending motorcycle bearing registration No.JK02CK-
1586)
3. Liberty General Insurance Ltd., 171/2, 2nd Floor, Rai Market, Vijay
Rattan Chowk, Sadar Bazar Road, Ambala Cantt., Haryana. Policy
No.201220040119800069200000 valid from 13.05.2019 to
12.05.2024
(Insurer of offending motorcycle bearing registration No.JK02CK-
1586)
...Respondents
CLAIM PETITION UNDER SECTIONS 140 & 166 OF THE
MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988
Present: Sh. Deepak Grover, Advocate for the claimant-petitioner.
Sh. Jasbir Singh Pahuja, Advocate for respondent No.1.
Sh. Gaurav Gupta, Advocate for respondent No.3.
Respondent No.2 proceeded ex-parte v.o.d. 03.12.2024.
AWARD
(Jatin Garg)
MACT, Kurukshetra
26.03.2025 (UID:HR0278)
CNR No.HRKU01-000468-2022 2 MACP/76/2022
GANGA DEVI VERSUS SACHIN CHAUDHARY AND ORS.
The claimant is widow of deceased Balbir Singh. By way of
instant petition filed under Sections 140 and 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act,
she seeks compensation on account of unfortunate death of said Balbir
Singh in a motor vehicular accident.
2. According to the claimant, on 05.07.2021, at about 09:45 P.M.,
Balbir Singh (since deceased) parked his truck and was crossing the road at
NHW Seswan Morh Marheen on foot and in the meantime, a motorcycle
bearing registration No.JK02CK-1586, driven by respondent No.1, came
from Dyalachack towards Kathua side in a very high speed and rash and
negligent manner and hit Balbir Singh and one Salvinder Singh, as a result
of which, they sustained serious and grievous injuries on vital parts of their
body. Thereafter, Balbir Singh was taken to Govt. Medical Hospital,
Kathua. From there, he was shifted to Govt. Medical College Hospital,
Jammu, where he expired during the treatment on 14.07.2021. FIR No.115
was registered under Sections 279, 337 and 304-A of IPC against
respondent No.1 at Police Station Rajbagh, District Kathua on 05.07.2021.
As per the claimant, the deceased was 60 years old and he was
Heavy Vehicle Driver at Bhullar Transport Company, Chandigarh and was
earning Rs.30,000/- per month. The claimant was dependent upon his
income and due to his untimely death, she has suffered great loss and
mental agony. An amount of Rs.1,00,000/- was spent on the transportation,
last rites etc. of the deceased.
(Jatin Garg)
MACT, Kurukshetra
26.03.2025 (UID:HR0278)
CNR No.HRKU01-000468-2022 3 MACP/76/2022
GANGA DEVI VERSUS SACHIN CHAUDHARY AND ORS.
With these averments, the claimant claim compensation of
Rs.50 lakhs on account of death of Balbir Singh against respondents No.1 to
3, who are the respective driver, owner and insurer of the offending vehicle.
3. Respondent No.1 in his written-statement denied that any
accident has occurred by the rash and negligent driving of the offending
vehicle by respondent No.1. It has been submitted that respondent No.1 has
been falsely implicated in the present FIR. It has further been submitted that
the vehicle in question was fully insured with respondent No.3 at the time of
the alleged accident. All other material assertions including the age, income
and other antecedents of the deceased have been controverted with a prayer
for dismissal of the petition.
4. Respondent No.3-Insurance Company also appeared in
response to a notice issued to it and filed a separate written statement, in
which, besides the general preliminary objections regarding locus standi,
maintainability, mis-joinder and non-joinder of necessary parties etc., it has
been submitted that no such alleged accident has occurred with the vehicle
in question and the present petition has been filed just to grab money from
respondent No.3. It has further been submitted that respondent No.1 was
neither the driver of the vehicle in question, nor he was having valid and
effective driving licence at the time of the alleged accident. It has also been
submitted that the vehicle in question was being driven in contravention of
the terms and conditions of the insurance policy and against the provisions
(Jatin Garg)
MACT, Kurukshetra
26.03.2025 (UID:HR0278)
CNR No.HRKU01-000468-2022 4 MACP/76/2022
GANGA DEVI VERSUS SACHIN CHAUDHARY AND ORS.
of the Act. All other material assertions including the age, income and other
antecedents of the deceased have been controverted with a prayer for
dismissal of the petition.
5. Respondent No.2 did not appear before the Court despite due
execution of publication against him, as such, he was proceeded ex-parte
vide order dated 03.12.2024.
6. Following issues were framed for adjudication:-
1. Whether Balbir Singh died due to injuries suffered in the
accident, which took place on 05.07.2021 at about 09:45 PM in
the area of Police Station Rajbagh, District Kathua, caused by
rash and negligent driving of offending vehicle bearing
registration No.JK02CK-1586 being driven by respondent
No.1, owned by respondent No.2 and insured with respondent
No.3? OPP
2. If issue No.1 is proved, whether the claimant is entitled to
compensation, if so to what amount and from whom? OPP
3. Whether respondent No.1 was not holding valid and effective
driving licence at the time of accident and vehicle was being
driven in violation of the condition of the insurance policy?
OPR-3
4. Relief.
7. Parties have produced evidence to support their respective
stand.
8. I have heard learned counsel for both the parties and have gone
through the case file very carefully and meticulously. My issue-wise
findings, with reasons thereof, are as under:-
(Jatin Garg)
MACT, Kurukshetra
26.03.2025 (UID:HR0278)
CNR No.HRKU01-000468-2022 5 MACP/76/2022
GANGA DEVI VERSUS SACHIN CHAUDHARY AND ORS.
ISSUE NO.1:-
9. It is settled proposition of law that registration of criminal case
against the driver of the offending vehicle for causing accident by rash and
negligent driving is a prima facie proof that the accident was a result of
rashness and negligence on his part as has been held in Girdhari Lal Vs.
Radhey Shyam & Ors. 1993 (2) P.L.R. 109. It is further settled proposition
of law that in motor vehicle accidents claim cases, the approach to find out
who was rash and negligent in causing the accident is different from the one
when a person is challaned in a criminal court on a culpable charge. The
burden of proof on the petitioners is not that heavy as is required to prove a
criminal charge for rash and negligent driving of the vehicle.
10. In support of this issue, the claimant entered into the witness
box as PW1 and in her affidavit Ex.PW1/A tendered as examination-in-
chief, she testified about the death of her deceased husband in this accident.
During cross-examination, she admitted that she is not an eye witness to the
accident. The son of the claimant, namely, Sandeep Singh also entered into
the witness box as PW2 and in his affidavit Ex.PW2/A tendered as
examination-in-chief, he testified about the death of his deceased father in
this accident. During cross-examination, he admitted that he is not an eye
witness to the accident.
11. Now, the contention of respondent No.3 is that no eye witness
of the accident has been examined by the claimant to prove that the accident
(Jatin Garg)
MACT, Kurukshetra
26.03.2025 (UID:HR0278)
CNR No.HRKU01-000468-2022 6 MACP/76/2022
GANGA DEVI VERSUS SACHIN CHAUDHARY AND ORS.
was a result of rashness and negligence on the part of respondent No.1.
Heard. This contention is not tenable in the eyes of law, in as much as force
can be drawn from case law titled as Ranjeet & Anr. Versus Abdul Kayam
Neb & Anr., SLP(C) No.10351/2019, in which it has been specifically held
by the Hon’ble Apex Court that ‘once a charge sheet has been filed and the
driver has been held negligent, no further evidence is required to prove the
negligency of the driver of the offending vehicle. Even if the eye witnesses
are not examined, that will not be fatal to prove the death of the deceased
due to negligence of the bus driver.’
12. There is no evidence on the part of the respondents in rebuttal
to the aforesaid evidence. So much so, respondent No.1 i.e. driver of the
offending vehicle did not enter the witness box, so as to controvert the
manner of accident, or to prove the stand as taken by the respondents in the
written statement. In these circumstances, an adverse inference is liable to
be drawn against the respondents that had respondent No.1-driver entered
the witness box, he could not withstand the test of cross-examination.
13. Apart from above, as is evident from the evidence, after
lodging of the FIR, police investigated the matter and came to the
conclusion that accident was caused due to negligent act of respondent No.1
and filed the challan Ex.P6 in the Court of learned Area Magistrate
accordingly, so as to prosecute respondent No.1. Furthermore, filing of
claim petition against the same respondents by the father of another
(Jatin Garg)
MACT, Kurukshetra
26.03.2025 (UID:HR0278)
CNR No.HRKU01-000468-2022 7 MACP/76/2022
GANGA DEVI VERSUS SACHIN CHAUDHARY AND ORS.
deceased Satvinder Singh, who died in the same accident, and passing of
award by learned Presiding Officer, MACT, SAS Nagar, Mohali vide
Ex.P12 is also not in dispute, in which the eye witness was duly examined
and his testimony was duly relied upon while passing the award. There is
nothing on record to suggest that respondent No.1 lodged any complaint
with the higher authorities regarding his false implication.
14. In view of above facts and circumstances, there is no reason to
disbelieve the unrebutted and unchallenged testimony of PW1 and PW2.
Relying upon the same and other circumstances as discussed above, it is
held that the accident was caused due to negligent act of respondent No.1 at
the relevant time and which resulted in causing death of Balbir Singh, as is
evident from post-mortem report Ex.P1. Issue No.1 is accordingly decided
in favour of the claimant and against the respondents.
ISSUES NO.2 & 3:-
15. The claimant has claimed compensation on account of the
death of late Balbir Singh, who had died on 05.07.2021 on account of the
accident as discussed above. It has been submitted that deceased Balbir
Singh was 60 years of age on the date of accident. Admittedly, the accident
took place on 05.07.2021 and as per the Aadhar Card and Voter Card of the
deceased, copy of which has been placed on record as Ex.P3 and Ex.P4,
respectively, his date of birth is 01.01.1961 and accordingly, his age is taken
to be 60 years 6 months (approx.) on the date of his death.
(Jatin Garg)
MACT, Kurukshetra
26.03.2025 (UID:HR0278)
CNR No.HRKU01-000468-2022 8 MACP/76/2022
GANGA DEVI VERSUS SACHIN CHAUDHARY AND ORS.
16. Regarding income of the deceased, the claimant stated that the
deceased was working as Heavy Vehicle Driver at Bhullar Transport
Company, Chandigarh and was earning Rs.30,000/- per month. However, no
documentary evidence, showing the monthly income of deceased, has been
brought on record. In absence of any such document, the version of the
claimant that the deceased was earning Rs.30,000/- per month cannot be
accepted. Furthermore, for proving the fact that the deceased was working
as Driver at the said transport company, the claimant has placed on record
document Mark D, which is certificate issued by the said transport company
regarding the working of the deceased as driver at the said company.
However, the claimant has failed to examine any official/incharge of the
said company, who could have deposed that the deceased was working there
as Driver, nor the claimant has placed on record the heavy driving licence of
the deceased, which could show that he could drive heavy vehicles. In
absence of the same, it cannot be said that the deceased was working as a
Driver at the said company and was earning Rs.30,000/- per month. Mere
exhibition of document is not enough to prove the said contention.
Therefore, in these circumstances, the monthly income of the deceased is
liable to be taken according to the minimum wages prescribed by the
Labour Commissioner, Haryana, for the relevant period, as per the law laid
down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Govind Yadav versus The
New India Insurance Company Limited 2011 (10) SCC 683 and Megma
(Jatin Garg)
MACT, Kurukshetra
26.03.2025 (UID:HR0278)
CNR No.HRKU01-000468-2022 9 MACP/76/2022
GANGA DEVI VERSUS SACHIN CHAUDHARY AND ORS.
General Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram & Anr.,
2018(4) RCR (Civil) 333 as well as by Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High
Court in case titled as National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs Jameet Ram &
Ors., FAO No.2377 of 2017 and New India Assurance Company Ltd. Vs
Sheela Devi & Ors., FAO No.2426 of 2018.
17. In view of Notification No.IR-2/2021/20632-782 dated
01.09.2021 issued by the Labour Commissioner, Haryana under Section
5(2) of Minimum Wages Act, 1948 for the year 2021, his income is assessed
to the tune of Rs.9,803/- per month (rounded off), which is fixed for
unskilled labourer. Thus, the annual income of the deceased comes to
Rs.1,17,636/-. Since the deceased was more than 60 years of age at the time
of the accident, therefore, no future prospects are added in the said monthly
income. As the deceased was married and had one dependent, 1/3 of the
said amount is liable to be deducted for his personal living expenses. In
other words, an amount of Rs.39,212/- is to be deducted towards the
personal living expenses of the deceased out of the said amount of
Rs.1,17,636/-. Thus, the multiplicand, i.e. (income + future prospects –
deductions), comes to Rs.78,424/-.
18. As far as the question of multiplier is concerned, the learned
counsel for the claimant contended that the multiplier of 9 would be
applicable in the present case, whereas, it is the contention of the learned
counsel for respondent No.3 that the multiplier of 7 would be applicable in
(Jatin Garg)
MACT, Kurukshetra
26.03.2025 (UID:HR0278)
CNR No.HRKU01-000468-2022 10 MACP/76/2022
GANGA DEVI VERSUS SACHIN CHAUDHARY AND ORS.
the present case as the deceased was more than 60 years of age on the date
of the accident. In this regard, force can be drawn from the law laid down
by the Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in Sangtari Muleem and
Others Vs. Karnail Singh and Others, 2023(4) RCR (Civil) 5, wherein it has
been held that ‘Statute is beneficial and benevolent in nature for the victims
and absence of clarification about such technicalities cannot come in the
way of making a liberal interpretation of the provisions of the Statute for
extending its benefits to the victims, therefore, this Court is constrained to
assume that Hon’ble Apex Court while laying down the formula was
conscious of this aspect and thus, it is to be interpreted that upto the age
period of 55 years 11 months and 29 days, applicable multiplier would be
the same as mentioned for the age group of 51 to 55 years.’ In the given
case, the age of the deceased is 60 years 6 months (approximately) and is
falling between 60-61 years on the date of his death, therefore, the
multiplier of 9 would be applicable in the present case as per the aforesaid
law as well as law laid down in Sarla Verma & Ors. Versus Delhi Transport
Corporation & Anr. (2009) 6 SCC 121. Therefore, the total net annual loss
of dependency can be calculated as Rs.78,424/- multiplied by 9, which
comes to Rs.7,05,816/-.
19. In view of case tilted as Bhagwati and others vs. Manmohan
and others, FAO No.1280 of 2022 (O&M) decided on 26.04.2023, by
Hon’ble Jurisdictional Court, the claimant is entitled to a sum of
(Jatin Garg)
MACT, Kurukshetra
26.03.2025 (UID:HR0278)
CNR No.HRKU01-000468-2022 11 MACP/76/2022
GANGA DEVI VERSUS SACHIN CHAUDHARY AND ORS.
Rs.40,000/- towards loss of consortium and in Pranay Sethi’s case (supra), it
had been held that the amount of consortium, funeral expenses and loss of
estate should be enhanced by 10 per cent every 3 years. Hon’ble Supreme
Court has also allowed this enhancement in the case titled as N. Jayshree &
Ors. Versus Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Company Ltd, 2021 (4)
RCR (Civil) 642. Therefore, Rs.44,000/- is awarded to the claimant for loss
of consortium. In addition, the claimant shall be further entitled to be
compensated on account of loss of estate to the extent of Rs.16,500/- and
also for funeral expenses amounting to Rs.16,500/-. Moreover, the claimant
would be entitled to receive the said amount with interest at the rate of 7.5%
per annum from the date of institution of the petition till realization of the
award amount as per the judgment of Hon’ble High Court of Punjab and
Haryana in Paramjeet Kaur & Anr. Vs. Naseem Ahmad & Ors., FAO
No.8055 of 2017 decided on 27.11.2019.
20. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the amount of
compensation payable to the claimant is calculated as under:-
Sr. No. Head of compensation Amount
(i) Loss of Dependence Rs.7,05,816-00
(ii) Loss of Consortium Rs.44,000-00
(Jatin Garg)
MACT, Kurukshetra
26.03.2025 (UID:HR0278)
CNR No.HRKU01-000468-2022 12 MACP/76/2022
GANGA DEVI VERSUS SACHIN CHAUDHARY AND ORS.
(iii) Loss of estate Rs.16,500-00
(iv) Funeral Expenses Rs.16,500-00
Total Rs.7,82,816-00
21. In other words, the claimant shall be entitled to receive
compensation total amounting to Rs.7,83,000/- (rounded off) as calculated
above from the respondents, who shall be jointly and severally liable for
making the payment of the said compensation.
22. It is not in dispute that the offending vehicle was insured with
respondent No.3 at the time of accident and respondent No.2 is the
registered owner of the offending vehicle, which is evident from copy of
insurance policy Ex.R3 and copy of registration certificate Ex.R1 and that
respondent No.1 was not holding any driving licence at the time of the
accident.
23. In view of the above discussion, since respondent No.1 is
proved to be the driver and respondent No.2 is proved to be the owner of the
offending vehicle and the accident is shown to have been caused due to the
negligence of respondent No.1 in driving the offending vehicle, who was
not having valid and effected driving licence to drive the vehicle, hence,
respondents No.1 and 2 are held liable to pay the compensation. Although
the offending vehicle was insured with respondent No.3 at the relevant time,
(Jatin Garg)
MACT, Kurukshetra
26.03.2025 (UID:HR0278)
CNR No.HRKU01-000468-2022 13 MACP/76/2022
GANGA DEVI VERSUS SACHIN CHAUDHARY AND ORS.
however, since respondents No.1 and 2 are guilty of violating the terms and
conditions of the insurance policy, therefore, applying the principle of ‘pay
and recover’, respondent No.3 is directed to pay the entire amount of
compensation at the first instance and then recover the same from
respondents No.1 and 2 in the manner as laid down in Oriental Insurance
Co. Ltd. Vs. Nanjappan and others, (2004) 13 SCC 224.
24. Therefore, issue No.2 is decided partly in favour of the
claimant and against the respondents, whereas, issue No.3 is decided partly
in favour of respondent No.3 and against respondents No.1 and 2.
RELIEF:-
25. In view of my issue-wise findings given above, the claim
petition is partly allowed with costs in favour of the claimant and against
the respondents and a compensation of Rs.7,83,000/- is awarded to the
claimant on account of the death of Balbir Singh in the accident in question.
Respondents No.1 and 2 shall be liable to pay the compensation amount to
the claimant. Respondent No.3 is directed to pay the entire amount of
compensation together with costs and interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum
from the date of institution of the petition till realization, at the first instance
and then recover the same from respondents No.1 and 2 in the manner as
laid down in Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Nanjappan and others, (2004)
13 SCC 224. The claimant shall be entitled to receive 25% of the
compensation amount in cash, whereas, the remaining 75% of the amount
(Jatin Garg)
MACT, Kurukshetra
26.03.2025 (UID:HR0278)
CNR No.HRKU01-000468-2022 14 MACP/76/2022
GANGA DEVI VERSUS SACHIN CHAUDHARY AND ORS.
receivable by him shall be deposited in the form of an FDR for a period of 3
years in any nationalized bank under the fixed deposit scheme fetching
maximum interest.
26. In compliance of order dated 16.03.2021 passed by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court of India in Writ Petition No.534/2023 titled as ‘Bajaj Allianz
General Insurance Company Limited Vs. Union of India and others’ , the
amount awarded shall be deposited directly in SBI Bank Account
No.43407452946 IFSC: SBIN0006615, Branch Code: 6615 Motor
Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kurukshetra, by way of RTGS or NEFT.
27. A copy of this award be sent through email-ID i.e.
mactkurukshetra@gmail.com to the email ID of the insurance company.
28. Counsel fee is assessed as Rs.5,000/-. Memo of costs be
prepared accordingly. File be consigned to the record room after due
compliance.
29. Ahlmad is directed that the file for consignment should be
prepared as per clauses 3 to 6 of Chapter 16F Volume-IV of High Court
Rules and Orders (i.e. arranging the files in Part A & B), so that the record,
which is to be destroyed/weeded out, shall be kept separately from the
initial stage. Reader/Ahlmad is also directed to prepare the list of the
witnesses and exhibits, if any, at the end in an annexure form as per clause
(9) of Rule 2 of Chapter 11, Volume-I, Part A of the Rules and Orders of
(Jatin Garg)
MACT, Kurukshetra
26.03.2025 (UID:HR0278)
CNR No.HRKU01-000468-2022 15 MACP/76/2022
GANGA DEVI VERSUS SACHIN CHAUDHARY AND ORS.
Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court.
Pronounced in open court. (Jatin Garg)
26.03.2025 Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,
Kurukshetra.
Note: This award contains 15 pages and all pages have been checked
and signed by me.
(Jatin Garg)
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,
(Tarun Bindra, Stenographer-II) Kurukshetra.
(UID:HR0278)
(Jatin Garg)
MACT, Kurukshetra
26.03.2025 (UID:HR0278)
