Partly allowed

Sukhwinder Singh v. Jagir Singh

Punjab & Haryana HC3 Jul 2026FAO/2012/2003

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Claimants appealed a common MACT award enhancing compensation for injuries suffered in a car-jeep collision and vehicle damage. The High Court affirmed the contributory negligence finding, enhanced compensation for each injured claimant, but held passenger claimants entitled to full compensation without deduction as third parties under composite negligence principles; the vehicle damage appeal was

What did the court decide?

Enhanced compensation: Rs.14,000 (FAO-2012-2003), Rs.36,000 (FAO-2033-2003), Rs.1,22,500 (FAO-2032-2003) with interest @9% from 09.10.2001, payable jointly and severally; FAO-3630-2003 dismissed with

Sukhwinder Singh Vs Jagir Singh — Insurance | Punjab & Haryana HC (2026)

¶1

1.	FAO-2012-2003
	SUKHWINDER SINGH Versus	..... Appellant
	JAGIR SINGH AND OTHERS	..... Respondents
2.	FAO-2033-2003
	PARAMJIT KAUR Versus	..... Appellant
	JAGIR SINGH AND OTHERS	..... Respondents
3.	FAO-2032-2003
	DALJIT KAUR Versus	.....Appellant
	JAGIR SINGH AND OTHERS	..... Respondents
4.	FAO-3630-2003
	SUKHWINDER SINGH	....Appellant
	Versus
	JAGIR SINGH AND OTHERS	...Respondents

¶2

VISHAL VARDHAN 2026.07.07 17:43 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶3

Present: Mr. Shivam Gupta, Advocate & Mr. Devyansh, Advocate for Mr. Nischal Chetnya Manchanda, Advocate for the appellants.

¶4

Mr. Neeraj Khanna, Advocate and Mr. Ravinder Arora, Advocate for respondent-Insurance Company in FAO-2012-2003.

¶5

Mr. Vinod Gupta, Advocate for respondent-Insurance Company in FAO-3630 & 2032 and 2033-2003.

¶6

¶7

YASHVIR SINGH RATHOR. J.(Oral)

¶8

The aforesaid four appeals have been instituted by the claimants against the common Award dated 12.03.2003 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kurukshetra ( for short “Tribunal” ) in the petitions under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, filed by the appellants seeking enhancement of compensation on account of injuries suffered by Sukhwinder Singh, Paramjit Kaur, Daljit Kaur and damage to the Maruti car No.CH-01-D-1617 owned by Sukhwinder Singh in a motor vehicular accident which took place on 08.06.2001. Since all the appeals have arisen against the common award, the same are being decided together by way of this judgment.

¶9

Case of the claimants is that on 08.06.2001, claimant Sukhwinder Singh was driving Maruti car No. CH-01-D-1617 and was going to the house of the in-laws of his brother Jaswinder Singh. His wife Devender Kaur, brother's wife Gurpreet Kaur, two sisters Paramjit Kaur and Daljit Kaur, and nephew Harshdeep were also sitting in the said car. The Maruti car was being driven at a normal and moderate speed after following traffic rules and when it reached near Bus Stand Tikri at about 11:30/12:00 Noon, a bus was parked at the bus stand. The Maruti

¶10

VISHAL VARDHAN 2026.07.07 17:43 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶11

correct side of the road, when Mahendra Jeep bearing No.CH-1168 ( hereinafter referred to as ‘ offending vehicle’ ) came from the opposite direction, which was being driven by respondent No.1–Jagir Singh at a high speed and in a rash and negligent manner, and he hit the jeep head-on into the Maruti car. As a result of this accident, Sukhwinder Singh, Paramjit Kaur and Daljit Kaur suffered multiple injuries and the Maruti car was extensively damaged. The claim petitions were filed for grant of compensation on account of injuries suffered by them and damage caused to the car. It is also submitted that respondent No.1 was the driver while respondent No.2 was the owner of the offending jeep which was insured with respondent No.3 and all the respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation.

¶12

Respondents No.1 and 2 in their joint written statement alleged that the accident in question took place due to the rash and negligent driving of the Maruti car by Sukhwinder Singh. It is submitted that when respondent No.1 reached Tikri bus stand, a bus was parked there on its left side. However, Sukhwinder Singh while driving his Maruti car rashly and negligently, tried to overtake/cross the stationary bus without caring for the vehicles coming from the opposite direction, and thus collided his car into the jeep. They contended that the claimants suffered only minor injuries. The repair bills and treatment expenses are fictitious and a false FIR has been got registered in collusion with the police. Dismissal of the claim petitions was sought.

¶13

Respondent No.3 in its written statement also refuted the contents of

¶14

VISHAL VARDHAN 2026.07.07 17:43 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶15

locus standi, collusion, maintainability and that the jeep driver was not holding a valid driving license. It also submitted that the statutory liability of respondent No. 3 for third-party property damage is limited to the extent of Rs. 6,000/- only as per terms and conditions of the insurance policy.

¶16

The following issues were framed in the claim petitions titled as "Sukhwinder Singh Vs. Jagir Singh" (MACT No.189 of 2001), "Paramjit Kaur Vs. Jagir Singh" (MACT No.190 of 2001), "Daljit Kaur Vs. Jagir Singh" (MACT No.191 of 2001), and "Sukhwinder Singh Vs. Jagir Singh" (MACT No.192 of 2001) for adjudication: -

¶17

1. Whether the accident in question was caused due to rash and negligent driving of Mahindra Jeep No. CH-1168 by Jagir Singh, respondent no. 1? OPP

¶18

2. Whether the petitioners are entitled to compensation? If so, how much and from whom? OPP

¶19

3. Whether the claimants have no locus standi to file these claim petitions? OPR

¶20

4. Whether the claim petitions are not maintainable in the present form? OPR

¶21

5. Whether the claim petitions have been filed in collusion with respondents No. 1 and 2? If so, to what effect? OPR-3

¶22

6. Whether the claim petitions are bad for non-joinder and mis-joinder of parties and cause of action? OPR

¶23

7. Whether respondents No. 1 and 2 have committed breach of terms and conditions of the insurance policy, as alleged in additional pleas? If so, what effect? OPR-3

¶24

8. Relief."

¶25

VISHAL VARDHAN 2026.07.07 17:43 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶26

cases.

¶27

In order to prove their respective cases, claimants Sukhwinder Singh, Paramjit Kaur, and Daljit Kaur entered the witness box as PW-3, PW-6, and PW-7 respectively. They also examined PW-1 Dr. G.D. Mittal, PW-2 Dr. K.D. Sharma, PW-4 Dr. Rakesh Arora, PW-5 Sanjeev Kumar (mechanic), and PW-8 Buta Ram and closed the evidence on their behalf. On the other hand, the respondents tendered the copy of the driving license of respondent No.1 as Ex.R1 and closed their evidence.

¶28

After hearing the parties and on going through the material on file, the learned Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident had taken place due to contributory negligence (50:50) of both the car driver (Sukhwinder Singh) and the jeep driver (Jagir Singh). The Tribunal assessed total compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- payable to Sukhwinder Singh (awarded Rs.50,000/-), Rs.20,000/- to Paramjit Kaur (awarded Rs.10,000/-), Rs.20,000/- to Daljit Kaur (awarded Rs.10,000/-) and Rs.20,000/- for damage to car (awarded Rs.6,000/-). Interest @ 9% per annum was awarded from the date of filing of claim petitions i.e. 09.10.2001 till realization.

¶29

Feeling aggrieved, the appeals in hand have been preferred by claimants. The material on file has been perused and parties have been heard.

¶30

Learned counsel for the appellant(s) argued that the finding of contributory negligence under Issue No.1 is contrary to the evidence on record. Learned counsel for the appellants argued that the impugned award passed by the

¶31

VISHAL VARDHAN 2026.07.07 17:43 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶32

while driving their respective vehicles under issue No.1 is based on conjectures and surmises. The pleadings of the parties and evidence on file have not been appreciated in the correct perspective while holding that the driver of Maruti car who was one of the claimants had also contributed to the accident. Learned counsel next contended that the claimants had consistently deposed that their car was being driven on the correct left side of the road and they had already crossed the stationary bus when the offending jeep coming from the opposite side and hit their car head on. Learned counsel next contended that the evidence led by the claimants has gone uncontroverted as driver of the jeep (offending vehicle), namely, Jagir Singh has not stepped into the witness box to state his case on oath and to offer himself for cross-examination and in these circumstances, an adverse inference should be drawn against the respondents and the version of the claimants should be believed. Learned counsel next contended that even if it is admitted that the accident had taken place due to contributory negligence of driver of the Maruti car in which claimants were travelling, the deduction could have been made on account of contributory negligence only in respect of the compensation which was to be awarded to driver of the car, namely, Sukhwinder Singh. The other occupants of the car, namely, Paramjit Kaur and Daljit Kaur were third party qua driver and owner of the car and 50% deduction could not have been made out of the compensation awarded to them as it was open for them to recover the entire amount of compensation from one of the joint tortfeasor. In the case of composite negligence, a person who has suffered has not contributed to the accident and

¶33

VISHAL VARDHAN 2026.07.07 17:43 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶34

awarded to claimants, namely, Sukhwinder Singh, Paramjit Kaur, Daljit Kaur. Learned counsel next contended that inadequate compensation has been awarded and no compensation has been awarded under heads i.e. ‘Attendant Charges’, ‘Transportation Charges’, and ‘Special Diet’ and he prayed that compensation be suitably enhanced and appeals be accepted. In support of his contentions, learned counsel has cited Law Finder Doc ID #669171, “ Khenyei Vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. and Others” .

¶35

On the other hand, learned counsel for respondents argued that adequate compensation has been awarded by the learned Tribunal with well reasoned justification in all the petitions and no interference in the said awards is called for and appeals in hand be dismissed. 12. The first point to be determined is as to on account of whose negligent driving, the accident had taken place. To prove their case, all the three claimants, namely, Sukhwinder Singh, Paramjit Kaur, Daljit Kaur have stepped into the witness box as PW3, PW6 and PW7 respectively and have deposed that they were going in Maruti car being driven by PW3-Sukhwinder Singh. They had crossed stationary bus and had gone half an acre ahead of it when the offending jeep bearing No.CH-1168 came from the opposite direction being driven by respondent No.1 in a rash and negligent manner and jeep came towards their side and hit the car, resulting in injuries to them and damage to the car. During crossexamination, respondents have confronted PW3 Sukhwinder Singh with the contents of the FIR Ex.R1 which was admittedly lodged by him. As per this FIR,

¶36

VISHAL VARDHAN 2026.07.07 17:43 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶37

parked on the roadside and in the meantime, the jeep came from the opposite direction being driven by respondent No.1 and it struck against the car. During cross-examination, Sukhwinder Singh admitted that he might have told the police that he was overtaking the stationary bus when the jeep came from the opposite side. As such, he did not deny this fact that the accident had taken place when the car was overtaking the stationary bus. This fact mentioned in the FIR has neither been explained by the claimants in the claim petitions nor it has been proved to be incorrect. Rather, the claimants have improved their version while deposing before the Tribunal when they stated that they had gone half acre ahead of the stationary bus after overtaking it but this fact has not been pleaded even in the claim petitions which is otherwise contrary to the contents of the FIR Ex.R1. In these circumstances, the version of the claimants cannot be believed and rather it is established that accident took place when the Maruti car being driven by Sukhwinder Singh started overtaking a stationary bus parked on the roadside and the jeep came from the opposite direction and both the vehicles collided. In these circumstances, the only inference that can be drawn is that both the drivers contributed equally to the accident and they were driving their respective vehicles in a rash and negligent manner as Sukhwinder Singh started overtaking the stationary bus without caring for the jeep coming from the opposite side. Likewise, respondent No.1 did not apply brakes despite the fact that he must have seen the car overtaking the stationary bus and as such, both the drivers have contributed to the accident and learned Tribunal has thus rightly come to the

¶38

VISHAL VARDHAN 2026.07.07 17:43 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶39

driving on the part of drivers of both the vehicles and finding on issue No.1 is accordingly affirmed.

¶40

COMPENSATION IN FAO-2012-2003, SUKHWINDER SINGH VS. JAGIR SINGH AND OTHERS, ARISING OUT OF PETITION NO.189 OF 2001:-

¶41

As per version of claimant, he had suffered grievous injuries and disability to the extent of 10% and he had spent huge amount on his treatment. The Tribunal after going through the evidence led on file assessed the compensation payable to the claimant to the tune of Rs.1,00,000/- but on account of his contributory negligence, 50% amount was deducted and he has been awarded Rs.50,000/- only as compensation.

¶42

To prove the injuries, claimant has examined PW2 Dr. K.D. Sharma, who deposed that claimant came to his hospital on 29.06.2001 with the history of having suffered fracture of right femur three weeks earlier for which he was treated at PGI, Chandigarh. He operated upon him on 30.06.2001 and he was discharged on 10.07.2001. Thereafter, patient came to the hospital for follow-up treatment vide OPD card Ex.P2. PW2 also proved the bills Ex.P3 and P4. Bill Ex.P3 is for a sum of Rs.18,300/-, which was charged for surgery, room charges and other miscellaneous charges. Bill Ex.P4 is for Rs.12,030/- pertains to purchase of nail and implant from Apollo Orthopaedics Limited, Chandigarh.

¶43

PW3 Sukhwinder Singh deposed that he remained admitted at PGI Chandigarh for 21-22 days where fixator was applied in his right leg through

¶44

VISHAL VARDHAN 2026.07.07 17:43 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶45

Sharma at Ambala for 11 days, where he was operated upon on 30.06.2001. He had spent Rs.40,000-42,000/- at Chandigarh and Rs.50,000-55,000/- on his treatment at Ambala. He had also spent amount on transportation while going for follow-up treatment and took special diet and was attended by an attendant. He remained bedridden for four months after discharge from hospital and can walk with a walker and had engaged one servant for cultivating the land and paid him Rs.20,000-21,000/- for one year and he also engaged a driver to drive a tractor and paid him Rs.1,600/- per month.

¶46

PW1 Dr. D. Mittal deposed that the Board of Doctors comprising himself had assessed physical disability of the claimant-Sukhwinder Singh due to limitation of movement of right knee as per certificate Ex.P1 and he had suffered 10% permanent disability. He admitted that the disability may improve with the passage of time and it pertains to right lower limb only and is not qua the whole body. Learned Tribunal on appreciation of evidence while assessing compensation held as under:-

¶47

“From the aforesaid evidence it is however proved that Sukhwinder Singh suffered fracture of right femur. He remained admitted in PGI Chandigarh for 20 days and then in private hospital of Dr. Sharma for 11 days. He was operated upon and nail was inserted. He remained confined to bed for four months. He has also suffered some disability, although it is minor one. He has also produced bills of medicines and taxi fare. The bills are said to be for about Rs. 22,000/- and old. He also suffered pain and suffering. During treatment he could not attend to his agricultural work and, therefore,

¶48

VISHAL VARDHAN 2026.07.07 17:43 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶49

Some expenses were also incurred in follow up treatment. So keeping in view all the aforesaid circumstances lumpsum compensation in this case is assessed at Rs. 1 Lakh and so the petitioner would be entitled to Rs. 50,000/- only from the respondents, being a case of contributory negligence.”

¶50

However, in my considered opinion, the compensation has not been adequately awarded. The accident had taken place in the year 2001. The claimant has suffered fracture right femur and he remained admitted in PGI Chandigarh for about 20 days where he was operated upon. Thereafter, he was again operated upon in the hospital of PW2 Dr. K.D. Sharma at Ambala and he remained admitted there for about 11 days. Implants were inserted and as such, it is established that claimant had suffered grievous injuries. It is a matter of common knowledge that pain component in such injuries is enormous and such injuries take a long time to heal. The Tribunal has not considered the severity of injuries and has not awarded any compensation for ‘pain and sufferings’ and accordingly, claimant is held entitled to sum of Rs.30,000/- as compensation on account of ‘ pain and sufferings ’.

¶51

Two bills have been led in evidence Ex.P3 is for a sum of Rs.18,300/and Ex.P4 is for a sum of Rs.12,030/- and the total comes out to Rs.30,330/-. Since, claimant was operated upon at PGI Chandigarh as well as in the hospital of Dr. K.D. Sharma at Ambala, he must have spent some more amount in his treatment including purchase of medicines etc. However, no compensation has

¶52

VISHAL VARDHAN 2026.07.07 17:43 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶53

amount of guesswork has to be applied while assessing the compensation on account of expenses incurred on treatment as all the bills are not generally preserved by the family members and primary concern of the family members/attendants is to take care of the injured. Accordingly, claimant is held entitled to a sum of Rs.35,000/- on account of the ‘expenses incurred on treatment’ .

¶54

Claimant has suffered 10% permanent disability which relates to right lower limb only and is not qua the whole body. As such, the disability suffered by the claimant is not going to diminish his earning capability but in view of the disability suffered by him he is also entitled to a sum of Rs.25,000/- as compensation on account of permanent disability.

¶55

Claimant is an agriculturist and it can be assumed that he must be earning at least Rs.3,000/- per month in the year 2001, as some amount of guesswork has to be applied while assessing the monthly income of the claimant. Accordingly, monthly income of the claimant is assessed as Rs.3,000/- per month. 21. It must have taken at least six months for the injuries to heal and during this period, claimant would not have been able to do any work and accordingly, he is held entitled to a sum of Rs.18,000/- (Rs.3,000/- X 6) on account of ‘ loss of income during the period of treatment ’. During this period of six months, he must have engaged an attendant , spent some amount on transportation and on special diet . Accordingly, claimant is held entitled to a sum of Rs.20,000/- under these heads.

¶56

VISHAL VARDHAN 2026.07.07 17:43 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶57

appellant/claimant is assessed as under:-

¶58

Sr. No.	Head of Compensation	Amount (₹)
1.	Pain and sufferings	30,000
2.	Expenses incurred on treatment	35,000
3.	Permanent disability	25,000
4.	Loss of income during the period of treatment	18,000 (Rs.3,000 × 6 months)
5.	Attendant charges, transportation and special diet	20,000
	Total Compensation	1,28,000

¶59

However, it has already been held under issue No.1 that the accident in question had taken place due to contributory negligence of the claimant himself. Accordingly, he will be entitled to receive only half of the compensation amount which comes to Rs.64,000/- .

¶60

The enhanced compensation payable to claimant thus comes out to Rs.14,000/- ( Rs.64,000/- - Rs.50,000/- ).

¶61

COMPENSATION IN FAO-2033-2003, PARAMJIT KAUR VS. JAGIR SINGH AND OTHERS, ARISING OUT OF PETITION NO.190 OF 2001 :-

¶62

As per version of claimant-Paramjit Kaur, she was taken to Civil Hospital, Pehowa and thereafter, to PGI Chandigarh and she tendered her MLR Ex.P11. She deposed that she had suffered fracture mandible and her jaw was wired. She was operated upon at PGI Chandigarh and remained on liquid diet for 2-3 months. She remained admitted at PGI Chandigarh for one week and she

¶63

VISHAL VARDHAN 2026.07.07 17:43 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶64

PGI Chandigarh from 11.06.2001 to 13.06.2001. As per discharge card, she had suffered fracture mandible and some other dental injuries as well. She claimed to have spent Rs.25,000-40,000/- on her treatment and further stated that she feels pain in her head and jaw and her two teeth have become mobile. Learned Tribunal thus came to the conclusion that claimant has suffered fracture of mandible and some other injuries. She remained admitted in hospital and had to remain on liquid diet. As per bills produced on file, she had spent about Rs.2,600/- on her treatment in the PGI Chandigarh. It was further observed that some more amount may have been spent whose receipts have not been produced and she was awarded a total compensation of Rs.20,000/- out of which 50% was deducted on account of contributory negligence of the driver of the car in which she was travelling and she was held entitled to a sum of Rs.10,000/- as compensation.

¶65

However, the compensation assessed by the Tribunal is grossly inadequate. The claimant had suffered fracture mandible. Her jaw was wired and her teeth had become mobile. It is a matter of common knowledge that pain component in such injuries is enormous and such injuries take a long time to heal. The Tribunal has not considered the severity of injuries and has not awarded any compensation for ‘pain and sufferings’ and accordingly, claimant is held entitled to a sum of Rs.25,000/- as compensation on account of ‘ pain and sufferings ’.

¶66

Claimant was a homemaker and it can be assumed that she must have remained bedridden at least for two months and would not have been able to do any work during this period. As per prevalent minimum wages in the year 2001

¶67

VISHAL VARDHAN 2026.07.07 17:43 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶68

to a sum of Rs.6,000/- on account of loss of income during the period of

¶69

treatment .

¶70

During this period of two months, she must have engaged an attendant , spent some amount on transportation and special diet . Accordingly, claimant is held entitled to a sum of Rs.10,000/- under these heads.

¶71

The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.2,600/- on account of expenses incurred on treatment vide bills and receipts Ex.P62 to Ex.P67 and Ex.P69 to Ex.P75. However, compensation given by the Tribunal for the expenses incurred on treatment is not adequate. As such, some amount of guesswork has to be applied while assessing the compensation on account of expenses incurred on treatment as all the bills are not generally preserved by the family members and primary concern of the family members/attendants is to take care of the injured. Accordingly, claimant is held entitled to a sum of Rs.5,000/- on account of the

¶72

‘expenses incurred on treatment’ .

¶73

Accordingly, the compensation to be awarded to the appellant/claimant is assessed as under:-

¶74

Sr. No.	Head of Compensation	Amount (₹)
1.	Pain and sufferings	25,000
2.	Loss of income during treatment	6,000 (₹3,000 × 2 months)
3.	Attendant charges, transportation and special diet	10,000
4.	Medical expenses incurred on treatment	5,000
	Total Compensation	46,000

¶75

VISHAL VARDHAN 2026.07.07 17:43 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶76

Rs.36,000/- ( Rs.46,000/- - Rs.10,000/- ).

¶77

COMPENSATION IN FAO-2032-2003, DALJIT KAUR VS. JAGIR SINGH AND OTHERS, ARISING OUT OF PETITION NO.191 OF 2001 :-

¶78

Claimant-Daljit Kaur while appearing in the witness box as PW7 deposed that she was taken to Civil Hospital, Pehowa after the accident where she was medico-legally examined vide MLR Ex.P13. Thereafter, she was referred to LNJP Hospital, Kurukshetra. In the accident, her four front upper teeth and three front lower teeth were broken. She was discharged from the hospital after three days. Thereafter, she got herself treated from a private doctor, namely, Dr. Arora at Pehowa. Roots of her broken teeth were extracted and artificial teeth/denture of twelve teeth was fixed and she paid Rs.6,000-7,000/- to above said doctor. In all, she had spent Rs.25,000-30,000/- on her treatment. She still feels pain in her jaw and cannot consume her meals properly. The denture has to be replaced after 5-6 years.

¶79

PW4 Dr. Rakesh Arora deposed that in the month of June 2001, claimant-Daljit Kaur came to his hospital. Her 2-3 teeth had got extracted due to accident and four other teeth were mobile which were extracted by him. The extracted teeth were from the lower and upper jaw. Thereafter, he had fixed artificial teeth in place of the extracted teeth and had charged Rs.5,500/- for the same. He had also charged Rs.150/- for extraction of the teeth. He deposed that after 7-8 years, pasting of the fixed teeth will get removed and the same will have

¶80

VISHAL VARDHAN 2026.07.07 17:43 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶81

Ex.P85 to P88 for Rs.310/- only. The Tribunal also held that some more expenses were also incurred and sum of Rs.5,650/- was spent on her treatment in the hospital of Dr. Arora and claimant had spent Rs.6,500/- on her treatment and taking into consideration the fact that 7 teeth were broken and she has suffered permanent disability due to affixation of artificial teeth, she was awarded a sum of Rs.20,000/- as compensation out of which 50% amount has been deducted due to contributory negligence of driver of the car.

¶82

However, the compensation assessed by the Tribunal is grossly inadequate. The seven teeth of the claimant had got broken or extracted on account of injuries suffered by her and artificial teeth were implanted. She will certainly feel difficulty in chewing and eating food as deposed by Dr. Rakesh Arora. Moreover, the artificial teeth will require replacement after around 10 years. Therefore, taking into consideration the severity of injuries, the claimant is held entitled to a sum of Rs.50,000/- on account of ‘pain and sufferings’ due to breaking of teeth.

¶83

Learned Tribunal has also held that a sum of Rs.6,500/- was spent by the claimant on her treatment and thus the said amount is awarded for ‘ expenses incurred on treatment ’. However the testimony of PW4 Dr. Rakesh Arora that she will require some more amount for fu`ture treatment as artificial teeth will have to be replaced after 10 years has not been taken into consideration. Accordingly, claimant is also held entitled to a sum of Rs.40,000/- for ‘ expenses to be incurred on future treatment’ .

¶84

VISHAL VARDHAN 2026.07.07 17:43 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶85

remained bedridden at least for two months and would not have been able to do any work during this period. As per prevalent minimum wages in the year 2001 her income is assessed as Rs.3,000/- per month. Accordingly, she is held entitled to a sum of Rs.6,000/- on account of loss of income during the period of

¶86

treatment .

¶87

During this period of two months, she must have engaged an attendant , spent some amount on transportation and on special diet . Accordingly, claimant is held entitled to a sum of Rs.10,000/- under these heads. 38. The claimant has suffered loss of seven teeth and she need to used artificial denture as deposed by Dr. Rakesh Arora. Accordingly, claimant is held entitled to a sum of Rs.20,000/- on account of ‘ loss of amenities ’

¶88

Accordingly, the compensation to be awarded to the appellant/claimant is assessed as under:-

¶89

Sr. No.	Head of Compensation	Amount (₹)
1.	Pain and sufferings (breaking/extraction of seven teeth)	50,000
2.	Expenses incurred on treatment	6,500
3.	Future medical expenses (replacement of artificial teeth)	40,000
4.	Loss of income during treatment	6,000 (₹3,000 × 2 months)
5.	Attendant charges, transportation and special diet	10,000
6.	Loss of amenities	20,000
	Total Compensation	1,32,500

¶90

VISHAL VARDHAN 2026.07.07 17:43 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶91

Rs.1,22,500/- ( Rs.1,32,500/- - Rs.10,000/- ).

¶92

However, no amount could have been deducted out of the compensation awarded to other occupants of the car i.e. claimant-Paramjit Kaur in FAO-2033-2003 and Daljit Kaur in FAO-2032-2003 as they had not contributed to the accident. They were simply travelling in the car being driven by Sukhwinder Singh and were thus third parties qua drivers, owners and insurers of both the offending vehicles. Even if, the accident had taken place due to contributory negligence of the drivers of both the vehicles, it was open for the claimants, namely, Paramjit Kaur and Daljit Kaur, occupants of the car, except driver to recover the entire amount of compensation from one of the joint tortfeasors. In Khenyei’s case (supra) it has been held that in the case of composite negligence, the claimant is entitled to sue both or any one of the joint tortfeasors and to recover the entire compensation as liability of joint tortfeasors is joint and several. It has been further held that it will not be appropriate for the Court/Tribunal to determine the extent of composite negligence of the drivers of two vehicles in the absence of impleadment of other joint tortfeasors. In such a case, impleaded joint tortfeasor should be left, in case he so desires, to sue the other joint tortfeasor in independent proceedings after passing of the decree or award.

¶93

Hon’ble Supreme Court has also drawn distinction between contributory negligence and composite negligence and has held that there is a difference between contributory and composite negligence. In the case of contributory negligence, a person who has himself contributed to the accident

¶94

VISHAL VARDHAN 2026.07.07 17:43 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶95

extent of his own negligence; whereas in the case of composite negligence, a person who has suffered has not contributed to the accident but the outcome of combination of negligence of two or more other persons.

¶96

In the present case also, Sukhwinder Singh was driving the Maruti car in which the claimant-Paramjit Kaur and Daljit Kaur were travelling while offending jeep was being driven by respondent No.1 and accident had taken place due to rash and negligent driving on the part of drivers of both the vehicles and since claimants were third parties, they are entitled to sue both or any of the joint tortfeasors and to recover the entire compensation as liability of respondent No.1 and driver of the car namely, Sukhwinder Singh against whom claim petition has not been filed is joint and several. Learned Tribunal thus gravely erred in deducting 50% amount of compensation out of the compensation assessed by it and finding to that extent is reversed.

¶97

COMPENSATION IN FAO-3630-2003, SUKHWINDER SINGH VS. JAGIR SINGH AND OTHERS, ARISING OUT OF PETITION NO.192 OF 2001 :-

¶98

The owner of the Maruti car, namely, Sukhwinder Singh has filed this claim petition submitting that he had spent about Rs.40,000/- on the repair of his Maruti car. However, the Tribunal did not rely upon the bills Ex.P5 to Ex.P10 produced by the claimant on the ground that same appear to have been procured later on. It was further held that no surveyor has been examined to prove the extent of damage and even the mechanical examination report which might have

¶99

VISHAL VARDHAN 2026.07.07 17:43 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶100

damage. However, claimant was held entitled to a sum of Rs.20,000/- as compensation on account of damage to the car out of which half of the amount was deducted due to contributory negligence. Thereafter, in view of the clause in the Insurance Policy and Section 147(2)(b) MV Act, a sum of Rs.6,000/- was awarded as compensation for damage to the car as the liability of the Insurance Company was limited only to the extent of Rs.6,000/- and no extra premium had been paid to cover increase liability to damage to the property of the third party. The findings of the Tribunal in this regard is well reasoned and justified and does not suffer from any material illegality or infirmity and no interference in the same is thus called for and claimant/appellant is held entitled to a sum of Rs.6,000/- as compensation on account of damage to the car.

¶101

As a result of aforesaid discussion, the appeals bearing No.FAO2012-2003, FAO-2032-2003 and FAO-2033-2003 are partly allowed with costs and appeal bearing No.FAO-3630-2003 is hereby dismissed with costs.

¶102

In FAO-2012-2003 , appellant is held entitled to a sum of Rs.14,000/- as enhanced compensation over and above the compensation awarded by the Tribunal along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of claim petition i.e. 09.10.2001 till realization payable by respondents jointly and severally.

¶103

In FAO-2033-2003 , appellant is held entitled to a sum of Rs.36,000/- as enhanced compensation over and above the compensation awarded by the Tribunal along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of

¶104

VISHAL VARDHAN 2026.07.07 17:43 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶105

severally.

¶106

In FAO-2032-2003 , appellant is held entitled to a sum of Rs.1,22,500/- as enhanced compensation over and above the compensation awarded by the Tribunal along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of claim petition i.e. 09.10.2001 till realization payable by respondents jointly and severally.

¶107

The payments shall be deposited in their bank accounts to be provided by them.

¶108

Registry is directed to email the authenticated copy of the award to the respondent Insurance Company in terms of directions issued by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Writ Petition (Civil) No.534 of 2020 titled Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Versus Union of India and others, decided on 16.03.2021 and Insurance Company shall comply with the directions as issued under Clause (F) of the said judgment.

¶109

A photocopy of this order be placed on the file of the connected

¶110

cases.

¶111

Pending misc. application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.

¶112

03.07.2026	(YASHV	IR SINGH RATHOR) JUDGE
Vishal Vardhan
Whether speaking/reasoned.	: Yes/No
Whether Reportable.	: Yes/No

¶113

VISHAL VARDHAN 2026.07.07 17:43 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Sukhwinder Singh v. Jagir Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sukhwinder Singh v. Jagir Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sudesh Kumari Vs Sube Singh

Kamal Mehandiratta Vs Jamuna Shaw and Ors.

Santosh Kumari Atreja and Others Vs Satish Kumar and Others

Kamlesh Vs Jai Pal and Ors.

Ram Pal @ Pala Ram Vs Jai Pal & Ors.

Jaswinder Singh Vs State of Haryana