Punjab & Haryana HC: Motor Accident Compensation Recalculated, Contributory Negligence Argument Rejected, Payout Fixed at ₹16.87 Lakh
Case Name: Neetu @ Neetu Sharma & Ors. v. Sukhraj Singh & Ors. (with XOBJC-62-CII-2018)
Date of Judgment: September 26, 2025
Citation: FAO No. 7870 of 2016 (O&M)
Bench: Hon’ble Mrs. Justice Alka Sarin
Held: The High Court partly allowed the appeal and the cross-objections, recalculating compensation for the deceased’s family at ₹16,87,200 while rejecting the Insurance Company’s argument of contributory negligence. It held that the stationary truck, wrongly parked without indicators or reflectors, was solely responsible for the accident. While reducing future prospects addition from 50% to 40% in line with Pranay Sethi v. National Insurance Co. Ltd. (2017), the Court enhanced conventional heads such as funeral expenses, loss of estate, and consortium by applying the updated precedents of Pranay Sethi, Magma General Insurance v. Nanu Ram (2018), and N. Jayasree v. Cholamandalam Insurance (2021). It clarified that as the Tribunal had already disbursed the earlier higher compensation, the excess amount would not be recovered, in line with Usha Devi v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. (2019).
Summary: The case arose from a motor accident on 25.12.2014 when Vikas Sharma died after his car hit a stationary truck loaded with iron poles parked on the wrong side of the road without reflectors. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Gurdaspur, awarded ₹17,37,000 with 7.5% interest. The claimants sought enhancement, while the Insurance Company filed cross-objections claiming contributory negligence and excess award of 50% future prospects. The High Court dismissed the contributory negligence plea, citing the Supreme Court’s ruling in M. Nithya v. SBI General Insurance Co. (2025), which held that bald assertions without framed issues or evidence cannot reduce liability. Applying the multiplier method with adjustments, the Court recalculated compensation as ₹16,87,200, inclusive of consortium amounts for widow, children, and parents. However, it protected the disbursed amount from recovery, ensuring the dependents would not be burdened.
Decision: The High Court disposed of the appeal and cross-objections, recalculating compensation to ₹16.87 lakh, rejecting contributory negligence, and directing no recovery of the already disbursed higher sum from the claimants.