Chhinder Kaur and Ors. Vs Union of India and… — Motor Accident Claims | Punjab & Haryana HC (2026)

Chhinder Kaur and Ors. Vs Union of India and… — Motor Accident Claims | Punjab & Haryana HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Appeal allowed; impugned award dated 03.08.2004 of MACT Bathinda set aside and claim petition allowed. Compensation of Rs. 5,17,000/- (dependency Rs. 3,57,000/- + consortium Rs. 1,40,000/- + loss of estate Rs. 10,000/- + funeral Rs. 10,000/-) with interest @7.5% p.a. from filing till realization; respondents jointly and severally liable; Rs. 80,000/- each with proportionate interest to claimant Nos.1-6, balance with proportionate interest to claimant No.7.

Issue for consideration

Whether the accident of 01.08.2002, in which Tarlok Singh died, occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the offending military truck by respondent No.3 (driver Sarup Singh), i.e., whether the claimants proved negligence. +1 more

Court's answer

Proceedings under the Motor Vehicles Act being summary in nature, claimants must establish their case on the preponderance of probabilities, not beyond reasonable doubt; the Tribunal erred in applying a criminal-trial standard of proof.

Ratio / Principle

The Tribunal's ground for discarding the eye-witness testimony of CW1 Jaswant Singh (that he did not know the driver earlier) is wholly untenable, particularly when the driver himself admitted driving the vehicle at the relevant time; CW1's testimony is consonant with the FIR and unshaken in cross-examination.

Key takeaways

The defence version that the deceased, riding a bicycle, attempted to overtake a military truck from the left side does not inspire confidence and is inherently improbable.ratio¶29
Negligence is established: the Tribunal's finding against the claimants on the issue of negligence is set aside, and it is held that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the offending truck by respondent No.3.ratio¶33
Since the claimed income of Rs. 200/- per day lacks documentary evidence, notional income is assessed on minimum wages prevalent at the relevant time: Rs. 2,125/- per month, i.e., Rs. 25,500/- annually.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Motor Accidents - Fatal claim u/S.166 MV Act 1988 - Award of MACT Bathinda (03.08.2004) dismissing claim for want of proof of negligence set aside; appeal allowed. Held: (i) claims under the MV Act being summary in nature must be proved on preponderance of probabilities, not beyond reasonable doubt (Bimla Devi; S. Kaushnuma Begum relied on); (ii) eye-witness CW1's testimony, consonant with the FIR and unshaken in cross-examination, could not be discarded merely because he did not know the driver earlier, especially when the driver admitted driving the vehicle; plea that a cyclist overtook a military truck from the left is inherently improbable; accident held due to rash and negligent driving by respondent No.3-driver Sarup Singh. Quantum: notional income on minimum wages Rs.2,125 p.m./Rs.25,500 p.a. (claimed Rs.200/day undocumented); +25% future prospects (Pranay Sethi) = Rs.31,875; 1/5th deduction (seven dependents) (Sarla Verma) = Rs.25,500; multiplier 14 (age 42) = dependency Rs.3,57,000; consortium Rs.1,40,000 (Rs.20,000 x 7), loss of estate Rs.10,000, funeral Rs.10,000; total Rs.5,17,000 with interest @7.5% p.a. from filing till realization. Respondents jointly and severally liable; Rs.80,000 each with proportionate interest to claimant Nos.1-6, balance to claimant No.7 (father).

FAO-4614-2004 [1]

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

FAO-4614-2004

Chhinder Kaur and others ...Appellants

Versus

Union of India and others ...Respondents

Reserved on: 29.04.2026 Pronounced on: 01.05.2026 Pronounced fully/opera�ve 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 pe��on filed under Sec�on 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 came to be dismissed.

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 Sta�on, Bathinda. At that �me, 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 pe��on under Sec�on 166 of Motor Vehicles Act,

YOGESH MEHTA 2026.05.01 12:46 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

FAO-4614-2004 [2]

compensa�on was sought from owner & driver of the offending vehicle.

The respondents contested the claim pe��on by denying the manner of accident and asser�ng 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.

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 apprecia�on 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 pe��on.

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 tes�mony of CW1, which is consistent with the FIR, has been wrongly discarded without any valid reason. It is further submi�ed that even the driver of the offending vehicle admi�ed that he was driving the vehicle at the relevant �me and that FIR had been registered against him, which lends support to the case of the claimants.

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 a�emp�ng to overtake the truck.

I have heard learned counsel for the par�es and carefully gone through the record.

It is not in dispute that the accident in ques�on did occur on YOGESH MEHTA2026.05.01 12:46 01.08.2002 and that Tarlok Singh died as a result of injuries sustained I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

FAO-4614-2004 [3]

therein. It is also not disputed that respondent No.3—Sarup Singh was driving the offending vehicle at the relevant �me.

The core issue, therefore, is with regard to negligence. A perusal of the tes�mony 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 tes�mony is in consonance with the version given in the FIR and nothing substan�al could be elicited in his cross-examina�on to discredit his tes�mony.

The Tribunal discarded the tes�mony 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, par�cularly when the driver himself admi�ed that he was driving the vehicle at the relevant �me.

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

More importantly, the Tribunal has clearly erred in applying an incorrect standard of proof. It is well se�led 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 probabili�es and not beyond reasonable doubt, as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Bimla Devi and others v. Himachal Road Transport Corpora�on and others 2009 (13) SCC 530 , and S. Kaushnuma Begum and others v. New India Assurance Co Ltd and others. 2001 (2) SCC 9.

In view of the aforesaid se�led legal posi�on and the evidence available on record, this Court is of the considered opinion that the Tribunal YOGESH MEHTA2026.05.01 12:46 has misdirected itself in returning a finding against the claimants on the I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

FAO-4614-2004 [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.

Having held so, this Court proceeds to determine the quantum of compensa�on.

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

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 �me, which are taken as ₹2,125/- per month, i.e. ₹25,500/- annually.

In view of the law laid down in Na�onal Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi and others (2017) 16 SCC 680, an addi�on 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/-.

There being seven dependents, deduc�on 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 Corpora�on and another (2009) 6 SCC 121 . Consequently, the annual contribu�on to the family comes to ₹25,500/-.

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

In addi�on thereto, the claimants are en�tled to compensa�on under conven�onal heads. A sum of ₹1,40,000/- (₹20,000/- each) is

YOGESH MEHTA 2026.05.01 12:46 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

FAO-4614-2004 [5]

awarded towards loss of consor�um to all claimants collec�vely, ₹10,000/towards loss of estate, and ₹10,000/- towards funeral expenses.

Thus, the total compensa�on payable to the claimants comes to ₹5,17,000/-. The claimants shall also be en�tled to interest @7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the claim pe��on �ll realiza�on.

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

Out of the awarded amount, a sum of ₹80,000/- each along with propor�onate interest shall be payable to claimant Nos.1 to 6, whereas the remaining amount along with propor�onate 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

YOGESH MEHTA 2026.05.01 12:46 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document