Chhinder Kaur And ORS v. Union Of India And ORS

[1]

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

Chhinder Kaur and others ...Appellants

Versus

Union of India and others

...Respondents

Reserved on: 29.04.2026

Pronounced on: 01.05.2026 Pronounced fully/opera0ve part: Fully

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA Argued by: Mr. D.P. Gupta, Advocate and Mr. Shubham Gupta, Advocate for the appellants. Ms. Geeta Singhwal, Advocate for respondent No.1-UOI. **** DEEPAK GUPTA, J.

The present appeal has been preferred by the claimants assailing the award dated 03.08.2004 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bathinda, whereby their claim pe55on filed under Sec5on 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 came to be dismissed. 2.

The case set up by the claimants is that on 01.08.2002, deceased Tarlok Singh, aged about 42 years, was proceeding on his bicycle near Gate No.4, Railway Sta5on, Bathinda. At that 5me, a military truck bearing No. 98-D-115150-X, being driven by respondent No.3-Sarup Singh, in a rash and negligent manner, without blowing any horn, suddenly turned towards the le< side and struck against the bicycle of the deceased. As a result of the impact, Tarlok Singh sustained grievous injuries and was taken to Civil Hospital, Bathinda, where he was declared brought dead. It was further pleaded that the deceased was earning ₹200/- per day and was the sole breadwinner of the family comprising his widow, five children and aged father. By way of pe55on under Sec5on 166 of Motor Vehicles Act,

[2] compensa5on was sought from owner & driver of the offending vehicle. 3.

The respondents contested the claim pe55on by denying the manner of accident and asser5ng that the accident had occurred due to the negligence of the deceased himself, who was allegedly trying to overtake the truck. The age and income of the deceased were also disputed. 4.

On the basis of pleadings, necessary issues were framed. The claimants, in support of their case, examined Jaswant Singh as CW1, who is an eye-witness and author of the FIR, and Chhinder Kaur, widow of the deceased, as CW2. On the other hand, the respondents examined the driver Sarup Singh as RW1 and one D.K. Singh as RW2. Upon apprecia5on of evidence, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle was not proved and consequently, dismissed the claim pe55on.

5.

Assailing the above finding, learned counsel for the appellants has argued that the Tribunal has misread and mis-appreciated the evidence on record and has applied a standard of proof akin to criminal trials. It is contended that the tes5mony of CW1, which is consistent with the FIR, has been wrongly discarded without any valid reason. It is further submiHed that even the driver of the offending vehicle admiHed that he was driving the vehicle at the relevant 5me and that FIR had been registered against him, which lends support to the case of the claimants. 6.

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents has supported the findings of the Tribunal and contended that the deceased himself was negligent, as he was aHemp5ng to overtake the truck. 7.

I have heard learned counsel for the par5es and carefully gone through the record.

8.

It is not in dispute that the accident in ques5on did occur on 01.08.2002 and that Tarlok Singh died as a result of injuries sustained

[3] therein. It is also not disputed that respondent No.3-Sarup Singh was driving the offending vehicle at the relevant 5me. 9.

The core issue, therefore, is with regard to negligence. A perusal of the tes5mony of CW1-Jaswant Singh would show that he has categorically deposed that the offending truck was being driven rashly and negligently and that without giving any horn, it suddenly turned le< and struck the bicycle of the deceased. His tes5mony is in consonance with the version given in the FIR and nothing substan5al could be elicited in his cross-examina5on to discredit his tes5mony.

10.

The Tribunal discarded the tes5mony of this witness primarily on the ground that he did not know the driver of the vehicle earlier. Such reasoning, in the considered view of this Court, is wholly untenable, par5cularly when the driver himself admiHed that he was driving the vehicle at the relevant 5me.

11.

The defence version set up by the respondents that the deceased, who was riding a bicycle, aHempted to overtake a military truck from the le< side does not inspire confidence and appears to be inherently improbable.

12.

More importantly, the Tribunal has clearly erred in applying an incorrect standard of proof. It is well seHled that proceedings under the Motor Vehicles Act are summary in nature and the claimants are required to establish their case on the touchstone of preponderance of probabili5es and not beyond reasonable doubt, as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bimla Devi and others v. Himachal Road Transport Corporaon and others 2009 (13) SCC 530, and S. Kaushnuma Begum and others v. New India Assurance Co Ltd and others. 2001 (2) SCC 9.

13.

In view of the aforesaid seHled legal posi5on and the evidence available on record, this Court is of the considered opinion that the Tribunal has misdirected itself in returning a finding against the claimants on the

[4] issue of negligence. The said finding is, therefore, set aside and it is held that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the offending truck by respondent No.3.

14.

Having held so, this Court proceeds to determine the quantum of compensa5on.

15.

As regards the age of the deceased, the tes5mony of CW2 establishes that he was about 42 years of age at the 5me of accident and there is no cogent evidence to the contrary.

16.

Insofar as the income is concerned, though it has been stated that the deceased was earning ₹200/- per day, no documentary evidence has been produced. In such circumstances, the income is required to be assessed on the basis of minimum wages prevalent at the relevant 5me, which are taken as ₹2,125/- per month, i.e. ₹25,500/- annually. 17.

In view of the law laid down in Naonal Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi and others (2017) 16 SCC 680, an addi5on of 25% towards future prospects is required to be made, as the deceased was selfemployed and aged between 40 to 50 years. Thus, the annual income comes to ₹31,875/-.

18.

There being seven dependents, deduc5on towards personal expenses is to be made to the extent of 1/5th in terms of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sarla Verma and others v. Delhi Transport Corporaon and another (2009) 6 SCC 121. Consequently, the annual contribu5on to the family comes to ₹25,500/-. 19.

Applying the mul5plier of 14, appropriate to the age of 42 years, the loss of dependency works out to ₹3,57,000/-. 20.

In addi5on thereto, the claimants are en5tled to compensa5on under conven5onal heads. A sum of ₹1,40,000/- (₹20,000/- each) is

[5] awarded towards loss of consor5um to all claimants collec5vely, ₹10,000/- towards loss of estate, and ₹10,000/- towards funeral expenses. 21.

Thus, the total compensa5on payable to the claimants comes to ₹5,17,000/-. The claimants shall also be en5tled to interest @7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the claim pe55on 5ll realiza5on. 22.

Resultantly, the present appeal is allowed. The impugned award dated 03.08.2004 passed by the Tribunal is set aside and the claim pe55on is allowed. The respondents are held jointly and severally liable to pay the aforesaid compensa5on to the claimants. 23.

Out of the awarded amount, a sum of ₹80,000/- each along with propor5onate interest shall be payable to claimant Nos.1 to 6, whereas the remaining amount along with propor5onate interest shall be payable to claimant No.7. The appeal stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms. 01.05.2026 (DEEPAK GUPTA) Yogesh JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned:- Yes/No Whether reportable:- Yes/No Uploaded on: 01.05.2026