Smt.Sangita Walia v. Jaswant Singh

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

**** I.

Smt. Sangita Walia and another .....Appellants Vs.

Jaswant Singh and others .....Respondents II.

Na/onal Insurance Co. Ltd.

.....Appellant Vs.

Smt. Sangita Walia and others .....Respondents Date of Decision.:24.03.2026 CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA Present:- Mr. Pardeep Rajput, Advocate for the appellant in FAO-2450-1998.

Mr. Deepak Suri, Advocate for the appellant in FAO-296-1999.

Mr. Digvijay Prihar, Advocate for Mr. Hakikat Singh Grewal, Advocate for respondent No.2 in FAO-2450-1998 and for respondent No.4 in FAO-296-1999.

**** DEEPAK GUPTA, J. (ORAL) The present judgment shall dispose of two connected appeals arising out of the same award dated 06.08.1998 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chandigarh-one filed by the claimants seeking enhancement of compensa9on and the other by the insurance company ques9oning the liability fastened upon it. 2.

The factual matrix, as borne out from the record, is that on

-213.01.1996, Sanjeev Kumar lost his life in a motor vehicular accident. As per the case set up by the claimants, the deceased was crossing the road on foot from Sector-9 towards Sector-17, Chandigarh, when he was hit by the offending vehicle bearing registra9on No. DL-1LA-2210, which was allegedly being driven in a rash and negligent manner. The widow and minor son of the deceased ins9tuted a claim pe99on seeking compensa9on from the driver, owner and insurer of the said vehicle. 3.

Upon apprecia9on of the evidence, the learned Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident had occurred due to negligence on the part of both the driver of the offending vehicle as well as the deceased. However, while recording a finding of contributory negligence, the Tribunal did not appor9on the extent of negligence between the par9es and proceeded to award compensa9on of ₹4,15,000/- in favour of the claimants, fastening joint and several liability upon the respondents. 4.

Aggrieved thereby, the insurance company has assailed the award to the extent that despite a clear finding of contributory negligence, the Tribunal failed to appor9on liability. On the other hand, the claimants have sought enhancement of compensa9on on the ground that the income of the deceased has been assessed on the lower side. 5.

This Court has heard learned counsel for the par9es and carefully perused the record.

6.

At the outset, it is evident that the learned Tribunal has returned a categorical finding that both the driver of the offending vehicle and the deceased contributed to the occurrence of the accident. However, once such a finding of contributory negligence is recorded, it is incumbent upon the Tribunal to determine the propor9on in which the negligence is aDributable to each party. Failure to do so results in an erroneous determina9on of liability.

-37.

Having regard to the manner of the accident and the evidence available on record, this Court is of the considered view that the driver of the offending vehicle was primarily responsible for the accident, but the deceased also contributed to the same by aDemp9ng to cross the road without exercising due cau9on. Accordingly, the negligence is appor9oned in the ra9o of 60% on the driver of the offending vehicle, and 40% on the deceased. The finding of the Tribunal is modified to this extent. 8.

Coming to the ques9on of quantum of compensa9on, it is an admiDed posi9on that the deceased was a Diploma holder in Electrical Engineering and was also pursuing AMIE through correspondence. There is also evidence on record that he was engaged in the business of repair of motors and electrical equipment. Although the claimants asserted his income to be ₹5,000/- to ₹6,000/- per month, no cogent documentary evidence has been produced to substan9ate the same. The Tribunal, therefore, assessed the income at ₹3,000/- per month on a no9onal basis. 9.

In such circumstances, it is appropriate to take guidance from the minimum wages applicable at the relevant 9me. It is not disputed that in the year 1996, the minimum wages for a skilled worker in Chandigarh were ₹3,560/- per month, i.e., ₹42,720/- per annum. Given the technical qualifica9ons and voca9onal engagement of the deceased, adop9on of minimum wages for a skilled worker cons9tutes a more realis9c and just basis for determina9on of income. Accordingly, the annual income of the deceased is assessed at ₹42,720/-.

10.

The deceased being below 30 years of age at the 9me of the accident, addi9on towards future prospects is warranted. In view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Naonal Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi and others (2017) 16 SCC 680, an addi9on of 40% towards future prospects is to be made. Consequently, the annual income comes to ₹59,808/-.

-411.

There being two dependents, deduc9on of one-third towards personal and living expenses of the deceased is jus9fied. AIer such deduc9on, the annual loss of dependency works out to ₹39,872/-. 12.

For the purpose of mul9plier, the age of the deceased being less than 30 years, the appropriate mul9plier is '17', in terms of the principles laid down in Sarla Verma and others v. Delhi Transport Corporaon and another, (2009) 6 SCC 121. Thus, the total loss of dependency is calculated at ₹6,77,824/-.

13.

In addi9on to the pecuniary loss, the claimants are also en9tled to compensa9on under conven9onal heads. Having regard to the fact that the accident occurred in the year 1996, a sum of ₹15,000/- each is awarded towards loss of spousal and filial consor9um. Further, ₹5,000/- each is awarded towards funeral expenses and loss of estate. The total compensa9on thus works out to ₹7,17,824/-, which is rounded off to ₹7,18,000/-.

14.

However, since the deceased has been held contributorily negligent to the extent of 40%, the liability of the respondents would be restricted to 60% of the total compensa9on. Accordingly, the amount payable comes to ₹4,30,800/-.

15.

The Tribunal has already awarded a sum of ₹4,15,000/-. Therefore, the enhanced amount payable to the claimants works out to ₹15,800/-.

16.

Consequently, the appeal filed by the claimants is partly allowed to the extent of enhancement of compensa9on by ₹15,800/-, which shall be payable by the respondents jointly and severally along with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the claim pe99on 9ll realiza9on.

-517.

The appeal filed by the insurance company stands disposed of in terms of the appor9onment of negligence as indicated above. 18.

A copy of this judgment be placed on the connected file. 19.

Both the appeals stand disposed of accordingly. (DEEPAK GUPTA) JUDGE March 24, 2026 Nee9ka Tuteja Whether Speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No