The Punjab & Haryana High Court affirms that, even where compensation awarded by a Tribunal is higher than legally warranted and payments have been disbursed to claimants, the excess cannot be recovered from them—upholding Supreme Court precedent and binding subordinate courts in motor accident claims.
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 all subordinate courts in Punjab & Haryana; strong persuasive value elsewhere |
| Overrules / Affirms | Affirms Supreme Court and prior High Court precedent (Usha Devi v. National Insurance Company Ltd; New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Neelam and Others) |
| Type of Law | Motor Vehicles Act, Personal Injury/Compensation Law, Civil Procedure/Limitation |
| Questions of Law |
|
| Ratio Decidendi (3–8 sentences) | Where compensation awarded by the MACT has already been disbursed to claimants, even if subsequent appellate review finds the quantum was calculated on an erroneous basis (e.g., excessive percentage for “future prospects”), the disbursed excess cannot be recovered from the claimants. The judgment relies on Supreme Court precedent and consistent High Court authority, emphasizing both legal soundness and social justice in upholding non-recovery. The court also clarifies that the post-mortem report is the best evidence for determining age, and that parents can be considered dependents given Indian social context. The correct rate of future prospects addition (40%, not 50%) is reaffirmed, but practical recovery from the claimants is ruled out if disbursement has already occurred. |
| Judgments Relied Upon |
|
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by Court |
|
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | The appellant insurance company challenged the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal for the death of Harvinder Singh in a 2013 road accident—specifically contesting the assessment of the deceased’s age, dependency status of parents, and the addition of 50% towards future prospects. The Tribunal awarded Rs. 36,48,752 with 9% interest, finding the deceased’s age as 30 (per post-mortem), treating parents as dependants, and applying 50% future prospects. The claimants had already received the awarded amount. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts in Punjab & Haryana |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts, Supreme Court, and Tribunals considering recovery of excess compensation already disbursed to claimants |
| Follows |
|
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- The Punjab & Haryana High Court reaffirmed that excess compensation already released to claimants by the Tribunal cannot be recovered from them, following Usha Devi’s Supreme Court precedent.
- The post-mortem report is confirmed as the primary and best evidence for determining age of the deceased in accident compensation matters.
- Parents can properly be considered dependents for the purposes of calculating compensation, given Indian societal circumstances.
- Even when a Tribunal has used an incorrect rate for future prospects (50% instead of 40%), if compensation has already been disbursed to claimants, that sum is not recoverable.
- Lawyers can cite this authority to oppose insurance company demands for refund from claimants in identical factual circumstances.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The court first considered the appellant’s submission regarding the deceased’s age, referencing the post-mortem report as the most reliable evidence, aligning with Supreme Court guidance in Sunita v. Vinod Singh. The age was correctly determined as 30.
- Assessment of parental dependency was upheld. The court cited Indian social and familial norms and found the Tribunal’s approach supported by both fact and law.
- On the “future prospects” addition, the court recognized the Tribunal’s error in using 50%, restating that according to Pranay Sethi the correct figure is 40% for self-employed persons below 40 years old.
- However, the court accepted the respondent’s argument—corroborated by Usha Devi (SC) and subsequent P&H High Court case law—that if compensation has already been paid out, recovery from the claimants is not permissible.
- The court cited and quoted directly from Usha Devi v. National Insurance Company Ltd (SC) and New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Neelam and Others to support the principle of non-recovery.
- As the compensation was paid, the question of remedying the error did not arise: the appeal was thus dismissed.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner (Appellant: Insurance Company)
- The Tribunal wrongly assessed the deceased’s age as 31 instead of 30.
- The Tribunal incorrectly considered the parents as dependents.
- The Tribunal wrongly added 50% to income for future prospects, when only 40% is legally allowable.
Respondent (Claimants)
- The Tribunal rightly awarded the amount; parental dependency was correctly assessed.
- The deceased’s age was supported by the post-mortem, not contrary documentary evidence.
- Even if the compensation was excessive, since the amount has already been received, it cannot be recovered from claimants (relied on Usha Devi v. National Insurance Company Ltd.).
Factual Background
The appeal arose from an award by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Karnal, which had fixed compensation in respect of the death of Harvinder Singh following a road accident on 19.07.2013. Documentary evidence including post-mortem, FIR and income tax return showed the deceased’s age and income. The Tribunal found the deceased’s parents to be dependents, set the age at 30, and applied a 50% future prospects increase, awarding a total of Rs. 36,48,752 plus 9% annual interest. The claimants had already received the full amount.
Statutory Analysis
- The court’s review was under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (claims for compensation), as well as the Limitation Act, 1963 (condonation of delay in filing appeal).
- Multiplier and “future prospects” additions were interpreted expressly in light of Sarla Verma (multiplier rules) and Pranay Sethi (percentage for future prospects).
- The court emphasized the post-mortem report as statutory best evidence for age determination.
- The principle of recovery/non-recovery relied on Supreme Court interpretation rather than explicit statutory language.
Dissenting / Concurring Opinion Summary
No dissenting or separate concurring opinions reported; order delivered singly by Justice Sudepti Sharma.
Procedural Innovations
- The application for condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act was allowed, but otherwise, no new or special procedural innovation was reported.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – The High Court closely follows Supreme Court and previous High Court decisions, especially Usha Devi v. National Insurance Co. Ltd., regarding non-recovery of disbursed compensation.