In a significant judgment, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has ruled that compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act cannot be denied merely because the claimant was driving an unregistered “Jugaad” vehicle unless there is clear evidence of the claimant's fault.
“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,” stated Hon’ble Justice Pankaj Jain.
Background of the Case
- Case Title: FAO-425-1995
- Date of Decision: 27 March 2025
- Appellant: Bijender Singh
- Respondents: Raj Kumar and Others
The incident dates back to 11 December 1993, when Bijender Singh was driving a locally assembled “Jugaad” vehicle along with his brother. Their vehicle was hit by a U.P. Transport Corporation bus, bearing registration No. UP-80E-9860. The accident resulted in severe injuries to Singh, whose right leg was crushed and had to be amputated, rendering him 50% disabled.
- Compensation Awarded: Rs. 62,564
- Reason: The Tribunal held both the claimant and the bus driver equally negligent (50%-50%).
- Claim Filed Under: Sections 166 and 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988
The Tribunal applied a multiplier of 15 and presumed the claimant’s income to be Rs. 1000/month (minimum wage in Haryana at the time). After applying contributory negligence and deducting half of the total amount, Singh was awarded Rs. 62,564.
- Loss of Future Earnings: Rs. 45,000
- Medical Expenses (50% of Rs. 25,128): Rs. 12,564
- Pain, Suffering, Travel, Miscellaneous: Rs. 5,000
- Total: Rs. 62,564
Singh challenged the Tribunal’s decision on two major grounds:
- Negligence Finding:
- It was proved that the bus driver was solely responsible for the accident.
- The FIR supported this fact.
- The only basis for holding Singh negligent was his driving of an unregistered vehicle.
- Compensation Calculation:
- No amount was granted for future prospects, pain and suffering, special diet, attendant charges, and future medical expenses.
- The multiplier of 15 was unjust as Singh was only 22 years old at the time of the accident.
“It has come on record that the claimant as well as his brother were travelling only at the speed of 20 kmph when they were hit by the offending vehicle which was being driven at a very high speed.”
The Court found no overt negligence on Singh’s part and rejected the Tribunal’s 50% contributory negligence claim. It modified the decision, holding only the bus driver responsible.
| Heads | Amount by Tribunal | Revised by HC |
|---|---|---|
| Monthly Income | Rs. 1,000 | Rs. 1,000 |
| Multiplier | 15 | 18 |
| Future Prospects | Nil | 40% (Rs. 86,400) |
| Loss of Future Earnings | Rs. 90,000 | Rs. 1,51,200 |
| Treatment Expenses | Rs. 25,128 | Rs. 25,128 |
| Travelling & Misc. | Rs. 10,000 | Rs. 10,000 |
| Pain & Suffering | Nil | Rs. 50,000 |
| Special Diet | Nil | Rs. 5,000 |
| Attendant Charges | Nil | Rs. 10,000 |
| Future Medical Expenses | Nil | Rs. 10,000 |
| Total Compensation | Rs. 62,564 | Rs. 3,51,000 |
“For future, the respondents shall be liable to pay interest @ 9% per annum from the date of award till the date of actual realization on the enhanced compensation,” directed the Court.
- Appeal Allowed
- Previous Award Set Aside
- New Compensation Fixed at Rs. 3.51 Lakhs
- Interest @9% per annum on enhanced amount
- Any previously paid amount to be adjusted
“Claimant cannot be denied compensation merely for driving a Jugaad vehicle unless there is actual negligence on his part.”
Mr. Varun Parkash, Advocate for the appellant.
Mr. Sandeep Kotla, Advocate for the respondents.
Title: BIJENDER SINGH v. RAJ KUMAR AND ORS
