Rajesh Kuma Kumar Sardul Singh Singh and others v. Vs
Case Details
FAO No.194 o.1948 of 2001 (O&M) -1- IN THE THE HIGH COURT FOR THE ST HARYANA AT CHAN CHANDIGARH E STATES OF PUNJAB AND 214. FAO FAO No.1948 of 2001 (O&M) Date of Decision:21.08.2025 Date o Jilo and other d others Sardul Singh Singh and others Vs 2. FAO N AO No.1949 of 2001 (O&M) Chawli and a i and another Sardul Singh Singh and others Vs 3. FAO N AO No.1950 of 2001 (O&M) Roshani and ni and others Sardul Singh Singh and others Vs 4. FAO N AO No.1951 of 2001 (O&M) Silochna and na and others Sardul Singh Singh and others Vs 5. FAO N AO No.1952 of 2001 (O&M) Risali and oth and others Sardul Singh Singh and others 6. FAO N AO No.1953 of 2001 Rajesh Kuma Kumar Sardul Singh Singh and others Vs Vs ...Appellants ...Respondents ...Appellants ...Respondents ...Appellants ...Respondents ...Appellants ...Respondents ...Appellants ...Respondents ...Appellant ...Respondents CORAM:
Legal Reasoning
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMA AMARINDER SINGH GREWAL Present: Mr. Nipun Verma, Advocate for the appellants. Mr. Lalit Garg, Advocate for respondent No.3-Insurance C ance Company. Mr. Ajit Sihag, Advocate for respondent No.4. -.- PANKAJ KUMAR 2025.08.28 18:00 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh FAO No.194 o.1948 of 2001 (O&M) -2- AMARINDE INDER SINGH GREWAL J. (OR (ORAL) 1. This order of mine shall dispo FAO dispose of six appeals bearing FAO Nos.1948 to 48 to 1953 of 2001 arising out of by the ut of common award passed by the learned Moto Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bh to as al, Bhiwani (hereinafter referred to as the learned arned Tribunal) whereby separate y the arate claim petitions filed by the appellants-cla claimants seeking compensation Singh, ation on account of death of Jai Singh, Sukhbir, Haw ir, Hawa Singh, Dharam Pal, Ram Swa motor m Swarup and Kariya Devi in a motor vehicular acc lar accident held on 16.10.1995 when ersons when the aforesaid deceased persons were travellin avelling in a jugad from village Siwan Siwani to village Siwach. 2. On 16.10.1995 at about 6 PM near 6 PM when the jugad reached near village Siwa Siwach, a truck bearing No.HR-39 posite 39/1495 came from the opposite direction, dr , driven by respondent No.1 in a r er and in a rash and negligent manner and struck agains against the jugad, which was parked o ft side rked on a kacha path towards left side of the road. road. As a result of the impact, seve other t, seven persons died and some other sustained grie ed grievous injuries. Partap Singh, on ugad gh, one of the occupants of the jugad had reported ported the matter to the police but with ce but the police in collusion with respondent N dent No.1 lodged a false FIR No. gainst R No.197 dated 16.10.1995 against respondent N dent No.4. The appellants-claiman claim aimants filed their respective claim petitions, whi which stood dismissed by the learne learned Tribunal. 3. Learned counsel for the appel earned appellants submits that the learned Tribunal has al has dismissed the claim petitions e fact s by completely ignoring the fact that the accid e accident occurred due to rash and n nt and negligent driving of respondent No.1 i.e. dri .e. driver of the offending vehicle, ath of ehicle, which resulted into death of aforesaid per id persons and, therefore, the appel ed for appellants-claimants are entitled for compensation nsation. The learned Tribunal has titions l has dismissed the claim petitions PANKAJ KUMAR 2025.08.28 18:00 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh FAO No.194 o.1948 of 2001 (O&M) -3- merely on th on the basis of assumptions and pre mitted nd presumptions. It is also submitted that vide inte de interim order dated 17.01.1998, an n each 98, an amount of Rs.50,000/- in each case was awa awarded on the basis of no fault lia of the ault liability under Section 140 of the Motor Vehic Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referr ought referred to as the Act of 1988) ought not to have b have been ordered to be refunded, under in case the claim petition under Section 166 166 of the Act of 1988 fails. The sation They are entitled to compensation under Section Section 140 of the Act of 1988 on th , as in on the basis of no fault theory, as in that eventual entuality fault and negligence on th ending on the part of driver of offending vehicle is not is not required to be proved. 4. Per contra, learned counsels app .3 and ls appearing for respondents No.3 and 4 submit that it that the award passed by the learn correct learned Tribunal is based on correct appreciation iation of material available before it a nce is re it and, therefore, no interference is required in th d in the appeals preferred by the appel appellants-claimants. 5. I have heard learned counsel fo erused nsel for the parties and have perused the paper boo er book with their able assistance. 6. Records of present appeals were in the were burnt in a fire broke out in the High Court p ourt premises and the papers were re sal of ere reconstructed. From a perusal of the award pa ard passed by the learned Tribunal, it cident nal, it is crystal clear that the accident was not disp t disputed. Both the eye witnesses i latives esses i.e. PW1 and PW4 are relatives and reside in ide in the same village, much less, dr longed ess, driver of the jugad also belonged to their villag r village. PW-1 Partap Singh in his t ondent n his testimony stated that respondent No.1-driver o river of the offending truck had fled but d fled from the scene of accident but the same is b e is belied from the fact that it is re ged an it is respondent No.1, who lodged an FIR bearing aring No.197 dated 16.10.1995 agains of the against respondent No.4-driver of the jugad on the on the very day of accident, catego at the categorically stating therein that the accident had nt had taken place due to rash and n ondent and negligent driving of respondent PANKAJ KUMAR 2025.08.28 18:00 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh FAO No.194 o.1948 of 2001 (O&M) -4- No.4. To r To rebut the said version, the app t even e appellants-claimants did not even examine resp e respondent No.4-driver of the jugad id not ugad. Even respondent No.4 did not come forwar forward to complain to the higher false igher authorities regarding his false implication i ation in the aforesaid FIR nor any cou red on ny counter FIR was got registered on his behalf or half or on behalf of any complainan by the plainant, though it is alleged by the appellants-cla claimants that a complaint was t was made to the police by PW- -1 against respo t respondent No.1 but no FIR was iminal was registered. Rather, a criminal complaint wa int was got registered against respond 4 IPC spondent No.4 under Section 304 IPC wherein afte n after police investigation, it cam ed 20 came forth that he allowed 20 passengers to gers to sit in the jugad, though in crim from in criminal trial he was acquitted from charge under under Section 304 IPC. PW-4 Ved P Partap Ved Parkash is related to PW-1 Partap Singh and al and all claimants and respondent No. illage. nt No.4 belonged to the same village. PW-1 Partap Partap Singh also filed a criminal com re the al complaint on 05.06.1996 before the Magistrate un rate under Sections 279/337/304-A IP as the A IPC, which stood dismissed as the same was file as filed after a period of 75 days from the s from the date of accident. Thus, the appellants-cla claimants had failed to prove t ver of rove that respondent No.1-driver of offending veh ing vehicle was rash and negligent in nsible ent in his driving and was responsible for the accide accident occurred on 16.10.1995. 7. In view of the aforesaid facts Court facts and circumstances, this Court finds no reaso o reasons to interfere with the award p nal. ward passed by the learned Tribunal. 8. Though the learned Tribunal 8 had vide order dated 17.01.1998 had granted interi interim compensation under Section es Act ection 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act i.e., under ‘no der ‘no fault liability’ but it imposed a refund osed a condition that they will refund the same in c e in case their claim petition fails o of the fails on merits. The grievance of the appellants-cla claimants is that the said amount not to mount of compensation ought not to have been or ordered to refund. Even though the ough the appeal fails in so far as the PANKAJ KUMAR 2025.08.28 18:00 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh FAO No.194 o.1948 of 2001 (O&M) -5- claim petition etition under Section 166 of the Act ct that e Act of 1988 in view of the fact that the appellant pellants-complainants have failed to f rash ed to substantiate the factum of rash and negligen gligent driving by the driver of the llants- f the offending truck, the appellants claimants mu must succeed to the limited exten 140 of extent of relief under Section 140 of the Act. This This Court has no hesitation in mo basis. in moulding the relief on that basis. Resultantly, antly, the finding of the learned f the arned Tribunal qua refund of the compensation nsation granted under Section 140 of t In 40 of the Act of 1988 is set aside. In case the amo e amount is refunded by the applicant r dated licants-claimants in terms order dated 17.01.1998 p 998 passed by the learned Tribunal, all be unal, respondent No.2 and 3 shall be jointly and s and severally liable to pay a sum of llants- sum of Rs.50,000/- to the appellants claimants tow towards compensation under Sect , on r Section 140 of the Act of 1988, on account of th t of the death of Jai Singh, Sukhbir, l, Ram hbir, Hawa Singh, Dharam Pal, Ram Swarup and K p and Kariya Devi along with interest e date terest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of th g of the claim petition till realization eposit ation, excluding the period of deposit of amount b unt by the insurance company in te 1.1998 in terms of order dated 17.01.1998 passed by th by the learned Tribunal, if any. N unt of . Needless to say, the amount of compensation nsation under Section 140 of the Ac ble by the Act of 1988 shall be payable by respondent N dent No.3-Insurance company. 9. Resultantly, all appeals are above s are dismissed but with above ations. observations. 10. Pending misc. application(s), if a
Decision
(s), if any, also stand disposed of. (AMARIND RINDER SINGH GREWAL) JUDGE August 21, 2 Pankaj* , 2025 Whether speaking/reasoned Whether reportable Yes/No Yes/No PANKAJ KUMAR 2025.08.28 18:00 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh