Ram Kumar v. HON'BLE
Case Details
FAO-525-1999 (O&M) -1- 104 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH AT CHANDIGARH FAO-525-1999 (O&M) FAO Reserved on: Reserved on: 13.08.2025 Pronounced on:19.08.2025 Pronounced on: Ram Kumar .....Appellant Subhash and Others and Others .....Respondents VERSUS HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANDEEP PANNU CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANDEEP PANNU HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANDEEP PANNU Present: Mr. Digvijay, Advocate for Mr. Digvijay, Advocate for Mr. Vikram Singh, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Vikram Singh, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Vikram Singh, Advocate for the appellant. Ms. Aparna Singhal, Advocate and Ms. Aparna Singhal, Advocate and Ms. Aparna Singhal, Advocate and Mr. Aarush Neeraj Vaid, Advocate for respondents No.1 and 2. Mr. Aarush Neeraj Vaid, Advocate for respondents No.1 and 2. Mr. Aarush Neeraj Vaid, Advocate for respondents No.1 and 2. Mr. Amit Kumar Goyal, Advocate and Mr. Amit Kumar Goyal, Advocate and Mr. Amit Kumar Goyal, Advocate and Mr. Sandeep Kumar, Advocate for respondent No.3. Mr. Sandeep Kumar, Advocate for respondent No.3. Mr. Sandeep Kumar, Advocate for respondent No.3. MANDEEP PANNU, J MANDEEP PANNU, J 1. This appeal has been filed by the appellant/claimant Ram Kumar This appeal has been filed by the appellant/claimant Ram Kumar This appeal has been filed by the appellant/claimant Ram Kumar This appeal has been filed by the appellant/claimant Ram Kumar award dated 03.09.1998 passed by the learned Motor Accident challenging the award dated 03.09.1998 passed by the learned Motor Accident award dated 03.09.1998 passed by the learned Motor Accident challenging the Claims Tribunal, Karnal (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Tribunal’) Claims Tribunal, Karnal , whereby the (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Tribunal’) , whereby the claim petition filed by the appellant seeking compensation for injuries sustained in claim petition filed by the appellant seeking compensation for injuries sustained in claim petition filed by the appellant seeking compensation for injuries sustained in claim petition filed by the appellant seeking compensation for injuries sustained in a road accident was dismissed. a road accident was dismissed
Legal Reasoning
Facts of the Case Facts of the Case 2. The claimant The claimant The claimant The claimant filed a petition before filed a petition before filed a petition before filed a petition before the Tribunal seeking the Tribunal seeking the Tribunal seeking the Tribunal seeking ₹1,25,000 on account of injuries suffered in a road accident which compensation of ₹1,25,000 on account of injuries suffered in a road accident which ₹1,25,000 on account of injuries suffered in a road accident which compensation of occurred on 28.11.1996. According to the claimant, he boarded the bus from occurred on 28.11.1996. According to the claimant, he boarded the bus from occurred on 28.11.1996. According to the claimant, he boarded the bus from occurred on 28.11.1996. According to the claimant, he boarded the bus from for Karnal. When the bus reached near the railway bridge of village village Munak for Karnal. When the bus reached near the railway bridge of village for Karnal. When the bus reached near the railway bridge of village for Karnal. When the bus reached near the railway bridge of village , a jeep came from the opposite direction. The driver of the bus, who was Munak, a jeep came from the opposite direction. The driver of the bus, who was , a jeep came from the opposite direction. The driver of the bus, who was , a jeep came from the opposite direction. The driver of the bus, who was TRIPTI SAINI 2025.08.20 10:56 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-525-1999 (O&M) -2- driving at a high speed, lost control and the bus fell into a ditch. The claimant driving at a high speed, lost control and the bus fell into a ditch. The claimant driving at a high speed, lost control and the bus fell into a ditch. The claimant driving at a high speed, lost control and the bus fell into a ditch. The claimant sustained serious injuries, including fracture of his left leg. sustained serious injuries At the time of the , including fracture of his left leg. At the time of the accident, the claimant was 30 years old, employed as a constable in the police accident, the claimant was 30 years old, employed as a constable in the police accident, the claimant was 30 years old, employed as a constable in the police accident, the claimant was 30 years old, employed as a constable in the police ₹3,000 per month. He pleaded that he had spent department, drawing a salary of ₹3,000 per month. He pleaded that he had spent ₹3,000 per month. He pleaded that he had spent department, drawing a salary of s of promotion were adversely affected. ₹25,000 on treatment, and that his chances of promotion were adversely affected. s of promotion were adversely affected. ₹25,000 on treatment, and that his chance The matter was reported to the police on his statement, leading to registration of The matter was reported to the police on his statement, leading to registration of The matter was reported to the police on his statement, leading to registration of The matter was reported to the police on his statement, leading to registration of DDR No. 17, dated 29.01.199 at Police Post Monak. , dated 29.01.1998 at Police Post Monak. 3. , respondents appeared and filed their respective written Upon notice, respondents appeared and filed their respective written , respondents appeared and filed their respective written Upon notice statements. Respondent No. 1 (Driver) espondent No. 1 (Driver) of the offending vehicle in his written reply of the offending vehicle in his written reply negligence, and contended that the accident was caused due to rash has denied negligence, and contended that the accident was caused due to rash negligence, and contended that the accident was caused due to rash negligence, and contended that the accident was caused due to rash on collision, he swerved to the driving of the jeep. He asserted that to avoid a head-on collision, he swerved to the driving of the jeep. He asserted that to avoid a head driving of the jeep. He asserted that to avoid a head re the bus turned turtle as the side was low lying and filled with extreme left, where the bus turned turtle as the side was low lying and filled with re the bus turned turtle as the side was low lying and filled with extreme left, whe fresh sand. Respondent No. 2 (Owner) a dopted the same defence. Respondent No. 2 (Owner) adopted the same defence. 4. preliminary Respondent No. 3 (Insurance Company) has raised preliminary Respondent No. 3 (Insurance Company) Respondent No. 3 (Insurance Company) f accident was given by objections and denied liability, alleging that no intimation of accident was given by objections and denied liability, alleging that no intimation o objections and denied liability, alleging that no intimation o the insured. 5. Learned Tribunal has framed the following issues:- Learned Tribunal has framed the following issues: Learned Tribunal has framed the following issues: i). Whether the accident took place on account of careless , rash Whether the accident took place on account of careless, rash 0666 by respondent No. 1, and negligent driving of bus No. HR-45-0666 by respondent No. 1, and negligent driving of bus No. HR and negligent driving of bus No. HR claimant Ram Kumar received injuries? Subhash and in that accident claimant Ram Kumar received injuries? claimant Ram Kumar received injuries? Subhash and in that accident OPP OPP ii). the accident took place due to the negligence of the Whether the accident took place due to the negligence of the the accident took place due to the negligence of the joinder of Jeep Driver and claim petition is bad on account of non-joinder of Jeep Driver and claim petition is bad on account Jeep Driver and claim petition is bad on account necessary parties? OPR necessary parties? OPR TRIPTI SAINI 2025.08.20 10:56 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-525-1999 (O&M) -3- iii) Whether bus was not being driven by a person holding a valid Whether bus was not being driven by a person holding a valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident, if so to what and effective driving licence at the time of accident, if so to what and effective driving licence at the time of accident, if so to what and effective driving licence at the time of accident, if so to what effect? OPR3 effect? OPR3 iv) How much compensation the claimant is entitled and from How much compensation the claimant is entitled and from How much compensation the claimant is entitled and from whom? OPP whom? OPP v) Relief. Findings of the Tribunal Findings of the Tribunal 6. While deciding issues No. 1 & 2 While deciding i he Tribunal ssues No. 1 & 2 regarding negligence, the Tribunal 22) recorded at the instance of the claimant himself, relied on the DDR (Ex. P-22) recorded at the instance of the claimant himself, 22) recorded at the instance of the claimant himself, relied on the DDR (Ex. P wherein he stated that fresh sand was lying on the side of the road, and the accident wherein he stated that fresh sand was lying on the side of the road, and the accident wherein he stated that fresh sand was lying on the side of the road, and the accident wherein he stated that fresh sand was lying on the side of the road, and the accident igence occurred without fault of the bus driver. On this basis, it was held that negligence occurred without fault of the bus driver. On this basis, it was held that negl occurred without fault of the bus driver. On this basis, it was held that negl of the bus driver was not proved. of the bus driver was not proved. 7. he Tribunal On issue No. 3 regarding validity of Driving Licence, the Tribunal On issue No. 3 regarding validity of On issue No. 3 regarding validity of held that the Insurance Company failed to prove that the driver did not possess a held that the Insurance Company failed to prove that the driver did not possess a held that the Insurance Company failed to prove that the driver did not possess a held that the Insurance Company failed to prove that the driver did not possess a valid licence. 8. On issue No. 4 regarding compensation On i Tribunal accepted ompensation, the Tribunal accepted ₹2005 and charges of ₹1950, and awarded a lump sum of ₹5000 medical bills of ₹2005 and charges of ₹1950, and awarded a lump sum of ₹5000 ₹2005 and charges of ₹1950, and awarded a lump sum of ₹5000 medical bills of ₹5000 towards permanent disability (5% to left arm), pain and towards medicines, ₹5000 towards permanent disability (5% to left arm), pain and ₹5000 towards permanent disability (5% to left arm), pain and towards medicines, ₹10,000. suffering, thus assessing total compensation at ₹10,000. suffering, thus assessing 9. the Tribunal dismissed the claim petition on the However, in relief, the Tribunal dismissed the claim petition on the the Tribunal dismissed the claim petition on the However, in relief, ground that negligence of the bus driver was not established. ground that negligence of the bus driver was not established. ground that negligence of the bus driver was not established. for the parties Submissions of learned Counsel for the parties Submissions of 10. Learned counsel for the appellant argued that t Learned counsel f he Tribunal erred in appellant argued that the Tribunal erred in was not proved. The accident clearly occurred due to rash holding that negligence was not proved. The accident clearly occurred due to rash was not proved. The accident clearly occurred due to rash holding that negligence Even otherwise, under Section 140 of the Motor and negligent driving of the bus. Even otherwise, under Section 140 of the Motor Even otherwise, under Section 140 of the Motor and negligent driving of the bus. TRIPTI SAINI 2025.08.20 10:56 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-525-1999 (O&M) -4- fault liability. Vehicles Act, 1988, compensation is payable on the principle of no-fault liability. Vehicles Act, 1988, compensation is payable on the principle of no Vehicles Act, 1988, compensation is payable on the principle of no The Tribunal ignored this mandatory provision. The Tribunal ignored this mandato ₹10,000 is ry provision. Compensation of ₹10,000 is grossly inadequate considering the nature of injuries and medical expenses. grossly inadequate considering the nature of injuries and medical expenses. grossly inadequate considering the nature of injuries and medical expenses. 11. Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, argued that Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, argued that Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, argued that Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, argued that The he Tribunal rightly dismissed the claim as negligence was not proved. The the Tribunal rightly dismissed the claim as negligence was not pro he Tribunal rightly dismissed the claim as negligence was not pro claimant himself admitted in DDR that the accident occurred due to sand on the claimant himself admitted in DDR that the accident occurred due to sand on the claimant himself admitted in DDR that the accident occurred due to sand on the claimant himself admitted in DDR that the accident occurred due to sand on the The disability certificate (Ex. P- road, not due to negligence of the bus driver. The disability certificate (Ex. P road, not due to negligence of the bus driver. -21) mentions only 5% disability and was not proved by the issuing doctors. The mentions only 5% disability and was not proved by the issuing doctors. The mentions only 5% disability and was not proved by the issuing doctors. The mentions only 5% disability and was not proved by the issuing doctors. The ’s pay scale was not affected, and his promotion prospects remained intact. claimant’s pay scale was not affected, and his promotion prospects remained intact. ’s pay scale was not affected, and his promotion prospects remained intact. ’s pay scale was not affected, and his promotion prospects remained intact. 12. The following questions arise for determination in the present appeal The following questions arise for determination in The following questions arise for determination in the present appeal: (i) Whether the Tribunal was justified in dismissing the claim petition (i) Whether the Tribunal was justified in dismissing the claim petition (i) Whether the Tribunal was justified in dismissing the claim petition (i) Whether the Tribunal was justified in dismissing the claim petition ligence, despite recording a finding on the ground of absence of negligence, despite recording a finding ligence, despite recording a finding on the ground of absence of neg regarding injuries and expenses? regarding injuries and expenses? (ii) Whether the claim petition is maintainable, and if so, under which (ii) Whether the claim petition is maintainable, and if so, under which (ii) Whether the claim petition is maintainable, and if so, under which (ii) Whether the claim petition is maintainable, and if so, under which provision of the Motor Vehicles Act,1988? provision of the Motor Vehicles Act provision of the Motor Vehicles Act (iii) Whether the claimant is entitled to compensation under Section (iii) Whether the claimant is entitled to compensation under Section (iii) Whether the claimant is entitled to compensation under Section (iii) Whether the claimant is entitled to compensation under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act,1988 140 fault ,1988 on the principle of no-fault liability? liability? (iv) If so, whether the compensation awarded is just and adequate? (iv) If so, whether the compensation awarded is just and adequate? (iv) If so, whether the compensation awarded is just and adequate? 13. It is undisputed that the claimant suffered injuries in the accident. The It is undisputed that the claimant suffered injuries in the accident. The It is undisputed that the claimant suffered injuries in the accident. The It is undisputed that the claimant suffered injuries in the accident. The medical bills, disability certificate, and testimony of PW medical bills, disability certificate, 1 Dr. P.K. Bhatia support and testimony of PW-1 Dr. P.K. Bhatia support this fact. The Tribunal primarily relied on the DDR to conclude absence of Tribunal primarily relied on the DDR to conclude absence of Tribunal primarily relied on the DDR to conclude absence of negligence. Learned Tribunal while appreciating the evidence led by parties, Learned Tribunal, while appreciating the evidence led by parties, while appreciating the evidence led by parties, igence of bus driver. No rightly concluded that claimant failed to prove the negligence of bus driver. No rightly concluded that claimant failed to prove the negl rightly concluded that claimant failed to prove the negl However, interference is called for in the findings of learned Tribunal to that effect. However, interference is called for in the findings of learned Tribunal to that effect. interference is called for in the findings of learned Tribunal to that effect. TRIPTI SAINI 2025.08.20 10:56 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-525-1999 (O&M) -5- on under the Motor negligence is not the sole basis for award of compensation under the Motor negligence is not the sole basis for award of compensati negligence is not the sole basis for award of compensati Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, ‘the Act’) Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, 14. provides that where death or permanent Section 140 of the Act provides that where death or permanent provides that where death or permanent Section 140 of the disablement results from an accident arising out of the use of a motor vehicle, the disablement results from an accident arising out of the use of a motor vehicle, the disablement results from an accident arising out of the use of a motor vehicle, the disablement results from an accident arising out of the use of a motor vehicle, the fault basis. The first owner of the vehicle is liable to pay compensation on a no-fault basis. The first owner of the vehicle is liable to pay compensation on a no owner of the vehicle is liable to pay compensation on a no on itself is maintainable. The answer question that arises is whether the claim petition itself is maintainable. The answer on itself is maintainable. The answer question that arises is whether the claim petiti is clearly in the affirmative. A claim petition under Section 166 of the Act is is clearly in the affirmative. A claim petition under Section 166 of the Act is is clearly in the affirmative. A claim petition under Section 166 of the Act is is clearly in the affirmative. A claim petition under Section 166 of the Act is ordinarily based on fault liability and requires proof of negligence. However, in ordinarily based on fault liability and requires proof of negligence. However, in ordinarily based on fault liability and requires proof of negligence. However, in ordinarily based on fault liability and requires proof of negligence. However, in ight of compensation under addition to fault liability, the Act creates a special right of compensation under addition to fault liability, the Act creates a special r addition to fault liability, the Act creates a special r fault liability. Thus, even if negligence is not Section 140 on the principle of no-fault liability. Thus, even if negligence is not fault liability. Thus, even if negligence is not Section 140 on the principle of no proved, the claim petition remains maintainable under Section 140. Once it is proved, the claim petition remains maintainable under Section 140. Once it is proved, the claim petition remains maintainable under Section 140. Once it is proved, the claim petition remains maintainable under Section 140. Once it is le and resulted in established that the accident arose out of the use of a motor vehicle and resulted in established that the accident arose out of the use of a motor vehic established that the accident arose out of the use of a motor vehic permanent disablement, the claimant is entitled to statutory compensation under permanent disablement, the claimant is entitled to statutory compensation under permanent disablement, the claimant is entitled to statutory compensation under permanent disablement, the claimant is entitled to statutory compensation under Section 140, irrespective of negligence. The Tribunal, therefore, erred in Section 140, irrespective of negligence. The Tribunal, therefore, erred in Section 140, irrespective of negligence. The Tribunal, therefore, erred in Section 140, irrespective of negligence. The Tribunal, therefore, erred in dismissing the claim outrighly. dismissing the claim outrigh 15. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Kaushnuma Begum The Hon’ble Supreme Court in v. New India Kaushnuma Begum v. New India