The Punjab and Haryana High Court reaffirms that, even if compensation awarded by a Motor Accident Claims Tribunal exceeds what is legally due, amounts already disbursed to claimants are not recoverable from them; this follows established Supreme Court precedent and clarifies the position for subordinate courts, insurers, and claimants in the motor accident claim sector.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | FAO/5222/2017 of IFFCO TOKIO GENERAL INSURANCE CO.LTD Vs JASKIRAT AND OTHERS. |
| CNR | PHHC011129412017 |
| Date of Registration | 01-08-2017 |
| Decision Date | 31-10-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | DISMISSED |
| Judgment Author | Mrs. Justice Sudepti Sharma |
| Court | High Court of Punjab and Haryana |
| Precedent Value | Binding on subordinate courts in Punjab & Haryana; persuasive for other High Courts |
| Overrules / Affirms | Affirms the view taken by the Supreme Court in Usha Devi v. National Insurance Company Ltd. and prior High Court orders |
| Type of Law | Motor Accident Compensation / Tort Law |
| Questions of Law |
|
| Ratio Decidendi |
The court held that, following Supreme Court precedent, compensation amounts already paid to claimants are not to be recovered from them, even if found to be in excess or on the higher side upon appellate review. The court found no error in the Tribunal’s reliance on the post mortem report to determine age, nor in considering parents as dependants, reflecting Indian social realities. However, the court found that only 40% future prospects addition was legally justified (rather than 50%). Notwithstanding, since the compensation had already been disbursed, the sum was not recoverable from claimants. Appeal was dismissed. |
| Judgments Relied Upon |
|
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court | Relied on Supreme Court authority for non-recovery of excess amounts already paid; applied established legal principles regarding future prospects, dependency, and assessment of age using post-mortem reports. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | Deceased Harvinder Singh died in a 2013 accident; compensation of Rs. 36,48,752/- with interest @9% was awarded to claimants (widow, son, parents) by the Tribunal; insurance company’s appeal was limited to contesting the quantum calculations, including the deceased’s age, dependency status of parents, and percentage addition for future prospects. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts in Punjab & Haryana |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts, Supreme Court |
| Follows |
|
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Reaffirms that once compensation is disbursed to claimants, even if the quantum is reduced or found excessive on appeal, the excess amount is not recoverable from the claimants.
- Clarifies that the post mortem report is an accepted and sufficient basis for determining age in the absence of contrary material.
- Confirms that, in the Indian context, parents may be treated as dependents for motor accident compensation purposes.
- Holds that only a 40% future prospects addition applies for self-employed persons below 40 years as per Pranay Sethi, but modification not followed through due to sums already paid.
- Restates authority of Supreme Court precedents on non-recovery of excess disbursed compensation.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The court examined whether the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal erred by (a) taking the deceased’s age as 30 (not 31), (b) counting parents as dependents, and (c) applying a 50% future prospects addition.
- Held that the post mortem report is the most reliable evidence of age, as affirmed by the Supreme Court in Sunita v. Vinod Singh.
- Recognized the right of parents to be considered dependents under Indian social and familial practices, consistent with legal precedent.
- Noted that, per the law in Pranay Sethi, future prospects addition for self-employed persons below 40 years should have been 40%, not 50%.
- Despite the above, agreed with the respondent that, following Usha Devi (Supreme Court) and other High Court rulings, sums already disbursed to claimants are not recoverable, and hence, no direction for refund will be issued.
- Appeal dismissed on this ground, restating and following binding precedent.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner (Insurance Company)
- Tribunal incorrectly assessed deceased’s age as 31, not 30.
- Parents of the deceased wrongly treated as dependants.
- Tribunal wrongly added 50% future prospects; only 40% applies as per settled law.
Respondents (Claimants)
- Tribunal rightly awarded the compensation.
- Compensation already received by claimants; even if found excessive, recovery cannot be ordered.
- Cited Supreme Court ruling in Usha Devi v. National Insurance Company Ltd to support non-recovery of compensation already paid.
Factual Background
The deceased, Harvinder Singh, died in a road accident on 19.07.2013. His dependents (widow, minor son, and parents) filed a claim under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The Tribunal awarded Rs. 36,48,752/- as compensation with 9% interest. The insurance company appealed against the Tribunal’s order, challenging the quantum, the treatment of parents as dependants, the deceased’s age, and the percentage addition for future prospects. The claimants had already received the compensation.
Statutory Analysis
- Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988: Governs compensation claims by victims or dependants.
- Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963: Condonation of delay in filing appeal.
- Analysis includes application of Supreme Court guidelines on calculation of compensation (multipliers, future prospects) drawn from Sarla Verma v. DTC and National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi.
- Considered Supreme Court directions on recovery (or non-recovery) of compensation under appellate review.
Dissenting / Concurring Opinion Summary
No dissenting or concurring opinions are recorded in the judgment.
Procedural Innovations
- Application under Section 5, Limitation Act for condonation of delay was allowed for 72 days’ delay in filing the appeal.
- No new procedural precedents set.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – The decision affirms existing Supreme Court and High Court law on non-recovery of excess motor accident compensation already paid to claimants.