“Merely Driving an Unregistered Vehicle Without Any Overt Act Cannot Justify Contributory Negligence”: Punjab & Haryana High Court Enhances Compensation to ₹3.51 Lakh for 22-Year-Old Amputee
Isabella Mariam
The Single Bench of Justice Pankaj Jain of the Punjab and Haryana High Court held that a claimant’s operation of an unregistered vehicle, absent any attributable act contributing to the cause of the accident, could not form the basis for a finding of contributory negligence. The Court recorded that the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal had incorrectly attributed partial fault to the claimant despite uncontroverted evidence on record, including a duly proved First Information Report naming the bus driver. Upon examining the factual matrix, including the relative speed of the vehicles and the manner of collision, the Court found that the evidentiary basis relied upon by the Tribunal did not justify apportionment of liability to the claimant.
The injured claimant, Bijender Singh, filed an appeal against the award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal dated 17.12.1994, which had awarded him compensation of Rs. 62,564 under Sections 166 and 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The claimant was 22 years old at the time of the accident, which occurred on 11.12.1993. He and his brother were travelling in a locally assembled, unregistered vehicle known as a “Jugaad” when it was struck by a U.P. Transport Corporation bus bearing registration number UP-80E-9860. As a result, the claimant’s right leg was crushed and subsequently amputated, resulting in a 50% permanent disability.
The claim petition alleged that the accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving by the bus driver. In response, the respondents, including the driver and the transport corporation, denied the involvement of the bus and contested the claim.
The Tribunal framed several issues, including the question of whether the injuries were caused due to the negligence of the bus driver, and whether the claimant was entitled to compensation and to what extent. It concluded that both the claimant and the bus driver were equally negligent, each bearing 50% responsibility for the accident. The Tribunal based its finding primarily on the fact that the claimant was operating an unregistered and allegedly unsafe vehicle.
In determining the quantum of compensation, the Tribunal adopted a monthly income of Rs. 1,000, applied a multiplier of 15, and calculated the total notional loss in a death case as Rs. 1,80,000. Since the disability was assessed at 50%, the Tribunal reduced this amount to Rs. 90,000. Due to the finding of contributory negligence, the amount was further halved to Rs. 45,000.
Additional amounts were granted for treatment expenses, which were assessed at Rs. 25,128, and reduced to Rs. 12,564 for the same reason. A lump sum amount of Rs. 5,000 was awarded for pain and suffering and related incidental expenses. The total compensation thus arrived at by the Tribunal was Rs. 62,564.
Aggrieved by the finding of contributory negligence and seeking enhancement of the compensation, the claimant filed an appeal before the High Court.
Justice Pankaj Jain considered the pleadings and the evidence presented before the Tribunal. The Court noted that the accident had been recorded in the First Information Report (FIR), which named the bus driver as the person responsible. It was undisputed that the FIR had been duly proved on the record.
The Court recorded that both the claimant and his brother were travelling at a speed of only 20 kilometres per hour at the time of the incident, while the bus was being driven at a very high speed. The judgment stated: “Merely for the reason that the claimant was driving a Jugaad vehicle without there being any overt act attributable which led to cause of accident, the Tribunal ought not have held the appellant negligent.”
The Court concluded that the finding of contributory negligence by the Tribunal was incorrect. Accordingly, the findings on Issue No. 1 were modified, holding that the respondent No. 1, the driver of the offending vehicle, was solely responsible for causing the accident that led to the claimant’s injuries.
Having determined the liability, the Court proceeded to reassess the compensation.
In contrast to the Tribunal’s adoption of a multiplier of 15, the Court found that the appropriate multiplier, given the claimant’s age of 22, should be 18. The Court also awarded future prospects at the rate of 40% in view of the prevailing legal standards. The recalculated future loss of earnings was thus assessed as Rs. 3,02,400, of which 50% corresponding to the degree of disability (not contributory negligence) was awarded, amounting to Rs. 1,51,200.
Treatment expenses of Rs. 25,128 and travelling expenses of Rs. 10,000 were maintained. Additionally, the Court awarded specific amounts under various heads that had previously been left unaddressed by the Tribunal. These included:
Rs. 50,000 for pain and suffering
Rs. 5,000 for special diet
Rs. 10,000 for attendant charges
Rs. 10,000 for future medical expenditure
The Court summarized the revised calculation of compensation as follows:
Loss of future earnings due to disability: Rs. 1,51,200
Treatment expenses: Rs. 25,128
Travelling expenses: Rs. 10,000
Pain and suffering: Rs. 50,000
Special diet: Rs. 5,000
Attendant charges: Rs. 10,000
Future medical expenditure: Rs. 10,000
This brought the total revised compensation to Rs. 3,51,000.
The Court also addressed the issue of interest. It recorded that the rate of interest awarded by the Tribunal on the original sum would be maintained up to the date of the award. For the enhanced amount, the Court directed that the respondents shall be liable to pay interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of the award until actual realization.
The judgment clarified that “any amount already paid to the claimant/appellant shall be set off.”
The High Court modified the finding of contributory negligence recorded by the Tribunal and held the driver of the U.P. Transport Corporation bus solely responsible for causing the accident. The judgment recorded: “Respondent No.1 is held to be responsible for causing accident which led to injuries to the claimant.”
The Court further ordered an enhancement of compensation from Rs. 62,564 to Rs. 3,51,000, with interest at the rate of 9% per annum on the enhanced amount from the date of the award until realization. The interest awarded by the Tribunal was maintained for the originally awarded sum. The Court specified that any amount already paid shall be adjusted from the final amount payable.
“The instant appeal is allowed accordingly.”
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioner: Mr. Varun Parkash, Advocate
For the Respondents: Mr. Sandeep Kotla, Advocate
Case Title: Bijender Singh v. Raj Kumar and Others
Neutral Citation: 2025:PHHC:042248
Case Number: FAO-425-1995
Bench: Justice Pankaj Jain
[Read/Download order]
