Anurag Kalia Vs Satinder Singh

FAO No. 2126 of 2003 & other connected case s

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

Date of decision: 05.02.2026

I. Anuraj Kalia & A Satinder Singh& nr. Ors.	FAO No. 2126 of 2003 Versus (O&M)	…Appellan …Responden ts ts
II. Anuraj Kalia Satinder Singh& Ors.	FAO No. 2127 of 2003 Versus (O&M)	…Appella …Responden nt ts
III. Sarita Kalia	FAO No. 2128 of 2003 (O&M)	…Appella nt
Satinder Singh& Ors.	Versus	…Responden ts
IV. Vikas Kalia	FAO No. 2129 of 2003 Versus (O&M)	…Appella nt
Satinder Singh& Ors.		…Responden ts
V. Geeta Kalia	FAO No. 2130 of 2003 Versus (O&M)	…Appella nt
Satinder Singh & Ors.		…Responden ts
CORAM: HON’B LE MR.	JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA
Present:- Mr . A.P. Se	tia, Advocate
For appella	nts.

¶5

JITEN SHARMA 2026.02.06 15:58 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶6

Page N: 1 of 6

¶7

FAO No. 2126 of 2003 & other connected case s

¶8

M r . Vipul Sharma, Advocate for M r . Paul S. Saini, Advocate Fo r respondent No.3.

¶9

M r . Rishav Jain, Advocate and M r . Shivaly Singla, Advocate Fo r respondent No.5.

¶10

M r . Gopal Mittal, Advocate for Re s pondent No.6 National Insurance Company. ***

¶11

DEEPAK GUPTA, J.

¶12

All the present 5 appeals arise out of a common award dated 11.11.2002 pa s sed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Faridab a d, whereby five c laim petitions, all instituted u nder Section 166 of the Mo t or Vehicles Act, 1 988, arising out of the same motor vehicular accident, w e re decided togeth e r.

¶13

As the perusal of record reveal, o n 11.10.1997, Anuraj Kalia, along with Sarita Kali a , Geeta Kalia, Vikas Kalia, a six-month-old child Aakrati Kalia, and Vikas Prabhakar, was travelling from Delhi to A mbala in car bearing registration No. DL-9C-179 6 , which was being driven by A n uraj Kalia himself. When the c ar reached near G irbari, District Kurukshetra, it c a me to a halt due to a traffic jam. A truck bearing registration No. HR-03-6197was standing stationary ahead of the car. At that m oment, a bus bearing regist r ation No.DL-1P-3703, driven by respondent No . 1 Satinder Singh, came from th e Delhi side at a high speed and in a rash and negligent manner, and rammed int o the car from behind. As a res u lt of the impact, t he car was pushed forward an d went underneath the station a ry truck. Due to t h e injuries sustained in the accident:

¶14

Vikas Pr a bhakar and Aakrati Kalia (age d six months) succumbed to th e ir injuries.

¶15

The rem a ining occupants, namely Anu r aj Kalia, Sarita Kalia, Geeta K a lia and Vikas Kalia, sustained multiple inj u ries and were initially taken to Nilokheri Hospital and thereafter referre d to Karnal for further treatme n t.

¶16

JITEN SHARMA 2026.02.06 15:58 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶17

Page N: 2 of 6

¶18

FAO No. 2126 of 2003 & other connected case s

¶19

Fi v e claim petitions were filed seeking compensation - one by Anuraj Kalia & Geeta Kalia, parents of deceas e d child Aakrati Kalia; and four by the injured claimants. There is nothing on record to indicate whether the le g al representative s of deceased Vikas Prabhakar fi l ed any claim petition.

¶20

Th e driver, owner and insurer of the offending bus were impleaded as respondent s No.1 to 3, whereas the drive r , owner and insurer of the tr u ck were impleade d as respondents No.4 to 6.

¶21

Vi d e the common award dated 1 1.11.2002, the learned Tribu n al held that the a c cident occurred due to the sol e rash and negligent driving of the bus; and that there was no negligence attr i butable to the stationary tru c k. Different am o unts of compensation we r e awarded to the claima n t. Consequently, respondents No.1 to 3 were held jointly and severally liable to pay the compe n sation along with interest.

¶22

All the present appeals have be e n filed only on the question of quantum of co m pensation, and not on the issu e of negligence or liability.

¶23

FAO No. 2126 of 2003 (Death of child Aakrati Kalia)

¶24

Th e deceased child was six mont h s old at the time of accident. The learned Tribun a l has awarded ₹50,000/- und e r no-fault liability, and ₹10,00 0 /- towards shock a nd mental agony, making a tot a l of ₹60,000/-.

¶25

Le a rned counsel for the appellant s contends that the compensation awarded is w holly inadequate. Reliance h as been placed upon judi c ial precedents, where even in the case of childre n below one year, notional inco m e has been asses s ed, keeping in view the futur e prospects and the principles l a id down under th e Second Schedule to the Act.

¶26

Th o ugh it is not possible to assess the actual income of a child of s ix months, the Supreme Court has consistently h e ld that just compensation can n ot be illusory, and notional income must be adopted to avoid arbitrary figures. The Second Schedule to Section 163-A of the Mot o r Vehicle Act, though not strictly applicable, can safely be used as a guideline.

¶27

JITEN SHARMA 2026.02.06 15:58 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶28

Page N: 3 of 6

¶29

FAO No. 2126 of 2003 & other connected case s

¶30

As such, considering the age o f the child, the accident having occurred in th e year 1997, and judicial pre c edents governing assessment of compensation f or minors, this Court deems it a ppropriate to assess the notio n al income at ₹1 5 ,000/- per annum, and by a p plying the multiplier of 15, the compensation u nder the head of loss of depen d ency works out to ₹2,25,000/-.

¶31

In a ddition to above, the appellan t s are entitled to ₹5,000/- towa r ds funeral expens e s, and ₹10,000/- each towards loss of filial consortium.

¶32

Th u s, the total just compensation comes to ₹2,50,000/-. Af t er deducting ₹60, 0 00/- already awarded by the Tribunal, the appellants are h e ld entitled to enh a nced compensation of ₹1,90,0 0 0/-.

¶33

FAO No. 2127 of 2003 (Injury to Anuraj Kalia)

¶34

Th e appellant sustained simple in j uries on the forehead, chest and other parts of t he body. He was not hospitaliz e d and produced no medical bi l ls, though he clai m ed to have spent ₹10,000/- on treatment. The Tribunal awarded a lump sum of ₹ 3,000/-.

¶35

Ev e n though the injuries were s imple, the appellant must have suffered pain, inconvenience and mental tra u ma. Compensation must not be merely token. Accordingly, total compensa t ion is reassessed at ₹10,00 0 /-, entitling the appellant to an enhancement of ₹ 7 ,000/-.

¶36

FAO No. 2128 of 2003 (Injury to Sarita Kalia)

¶37

Th e appellant remained hos p italized from 11.10.1997 to 16.10.1997. M e dical bills amounting to ₹32, 5 76/- were proved. The Tribu n al awarded only ₹ 1,000/- towards pain and suffe r ing, which is grossly inadequat e . 16. Considering the duration of hospitalization and the physi c al suffering unde r gone, the appellant is held e n titled to ₹30,000/- as lump s u m towards pain, s uffering, attendant charges a n d incidental expenses, over and above the amo u nt already awarded.

¶38

JITEN SHARMA 2026.02.06 15:58 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶39

Page N: 4 of 6

¶40

FAO No. 2126 of 2003 & other connected case s FAO No. 2129 of 2003 (Injury to Vikas Kalia)

¶41

Th e appellant remained hospit a lized for six days and proved medical expenses of ₹17,920/-. Only ₹1,0 0 0/- was awarded for pain and suffering.

¶42

Applying the same reasoning a s in FAO No.2128 of 2003, the appellant is held entitled to an additional ₹30,000/- as just compensation f or pain, suffering a nd related expenses.

¶43

FAO No. 2130 of 2003 (Injury to Geeta Kalia)

¶44

Th e appellant remained hos p italized from 11.10.1997 to 29.10.1997, i.e. for 19 days, and incurred medi c al expenses of ₹60,834/-.

¶45

Th o ugh no permanent disa b ility was proved, her long hospitalization and uncontroverted testimony that she remained bedridden f or about six mont h s cannot be ignored.

¶46

Th e Tribunal awarded only ₹2,00 0 /- towards pain and suffering and ₹5,000/- towar d s loss of income, which is disproportionately low.

¶47

Having regard to the nature of injuries, duration of treatment and prolonged recovery, the appellant is held entitled to additional compensation of ₹1,50,000/- in l u mp sum.

¶48

Final Order

¶49

Consequently, all five appeals ar e allowed to the extent indicated

¶50

below:

¶51

FAO No.	Name of Appellant(s)	Enhanced Compensation
2126 of 200 3	Anuraj Kalia & Geeta Kali a	₹1,90,000/-
2127 of 200 3	Anuraj Kalia	₹7,000/-
2128 of 200 3	Sarita Kalia	₹30,000/-
2129 of 200 3	Vikas Kalia	₹30,000/-
2130 of 200 3	Geeta Kalia	₹1,50,000/-

¶52

JITEN SHARMA 2026.02.06 15:58 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶53

Page N: 5 of 6

¶54

FAO No. 2126 of 2003 & other connected case s

¶55

Th e enhanced compensation shall be payable jointly and sever a lly by respondent s No.1 to 3, along with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the d a te of filing of the respective claim petitions till actual realization.

¶56

All the appeals are disposed of accordingly. Copy of this order be placed on file o f each appeal.

¶57

(DEEPAK GUPTA) 05.02.2026 JUDGE Jiten Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No

¶58

JITEN SHARMA 2026.02.06 15:58 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶59

Page N: 6 of 6

Anurag Kalia v. Satinder Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anurag Kalia v. Satinder Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Tara Singh Vs Puran Singh etc.

Amar Chand Vs Jdr. Imp. Trust

Ram Parsad and Anr. Vs Satbir Singh and Ors.

Geeta Kalia Vs Satinder Singh

Naresh Kumar Vs Tej Kaur

Anurag Kalia Vs Satinder Singh