Punjab & Haryana High Court Sets Aside Finding of Contributory Negligence in Tractor–Trolley Accident; Fastens Liability on Insurer and Enhances Compensation
Case Name: Sushil Kumar and Another v. Sameer and Others
Date of Judgment: 9 January 2026
Citation: FAO No.2416 of 2024 along with XOBJC-19-2025
Bench: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Vikram Aggarwal
Held: The Punjab and Haryana High Court allowed the appeal filed by the driver and owner of the tractor-trolley and partly allowed the cross-objections of the claimants. The Court held that the finding of contributory negligence recorded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal was unsustainable and that the accident had occurred solely due to the rash and negligent driving of the tractor-trolley. The Court further held that the Insurance Company could not avoid liability merely because the trolley was not separately insured or because the driver held a Light Motor Vehicle licence, as the tractor’s unladen weight was below 7,500 kg. Compensation was enhanced by awarding consortium and revising conventional heads in terms of settled Supreme Court law.
Summary: The appeal and cross-objections arose out of an award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kaithal, in a claim petition filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The claimants were brothers and sisters of deceased Arvind, who died in a motor vehicular accident on 8 April 2022. Arvind was riding a motorcycle along with his brother Sameer when their vehicle collided with a tractor-trolley loaded with sugarcane. Arvind succumbed to his injuries.
The Tribunal held that the accident was a case of contributory negligence, assessed compensation at ₹15,42,000, and fastened liability on the driver and owner of the tractor-trolley, holding that the Insurance Company was not liable as the trolley was not separately insured and the driver possessed only a Light Motor Vehicle licence.
In appeal, the driver and owner challenged the fastening of liability upon them, while the claimants sought enhancement of compensation and setting aside of the finding of contributory negligence.
The High Court, on appraisal of the FIR, site plan, final report and oral evidence, held that contributory negligence had neither been proved nor substantiated by evidence. The Court found that the tractor-trolley had taken a sudden sharp turn, leading to the collision, and there was no material to suggest rash or negligent driving on the part of the deceased.
On the issue of liability, the Court held that the tractor-trolley was being used for agricultural purposes and the accident had occurred due to negligent driving of the tractor. Relying on consistent precedents of the Supreme Court and Coordinate Benches, the Court held that the Insurance Company could not escape liability merely because the trolley was not separately insured. The Court further held that in view of authoritative pronouncements, including Mukund Dewangan and Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Rambha Devi, a driver holding a Light Motor Vehicle licence is competent to drive a vehicle with unladen weight below 7,500 kg, and therefore there was no breach of policy conditions.
On the quantum of compensation, the Court upheld the income assessment and dependency calculation but enhanced compensation by awarding consortium of ₹48,400 to each of the four claimants and increasing amounts under the heads of funeral expenses and loss of estate in accordance with Pranay Sethi and Magma General Insurance. An additional sum of ₹1,99,900 was awarded along with interest at 7.5% per annum.
Decision: The appeal was allowed and the cross-objections were partly allowed. The findings of contributory negligence and fastening of liability on the driver and owner were set aside. It was held that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the tractor-trolley and that the Insurance Company was liable to satisfy the award. Compensation was enhanced by ₹1,99,900 along with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of institution of the appeal till realisation.