The High Court
Case Details
FAO-2248-2001 (O & M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJA IN TH AT CHANDIGAR UNJAB AND HARYANA IGARH 204 Pritam Ka m Kaur FAO No.2248 of Date of decision 248 of 2001 (O & M) cision :-25.07.2025 Versus Abey Sing Singh Nahar and others …..Appellant …..Respondents CORAM: AM:- HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NI E NIDHI GUPTA Present:- Mr. Jaskamal Singh Grewal, A wal, Advocate for the appellant.
Legal Reasoning
Mr. D.P. Gupta, Advocate for respondent No.3-Insurance urance Company. NIDHI GU HI GUPTA J. (Oral) The present appeal has b has been filed by the sole claimant/m ant/mother of the deceased seeking eking modification of the Award dated 15.1 15.11.2000 passed by the learned learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, nal, Fatehgarh Sahib (hereinafter nafter ‘the learned Tribunal’) whereby, although claim petition filed by t ed by the appellant under Section 166 of the of the Motor Vehicles Act (hereinafte einafter referred to as ‘the Act’) stood dism dismissed, yet, compensation of Rs. of Rs.50,000/- has been awarded to the appe e appellant under ‘No Fault Liability ability’ under Section 140 of the Act. Brief facts of the case, as plea s pleaded by the appellant, in the claim petiti petition are that on 07.8.1996 the de the deceased-Ranjit Singh/son of the appella ppellant was going from Punjab to G b to Gujrat in the Trolla No.HR- VIJAY ASIJA 2025.07.25 20.20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-2248-2001 (O & M) 2 26-A-4621 4621 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the s ‘the offending vehicle’), which was being d being driven by respondent No.2; own ; owned by respondent No.1; and insured by ed by respondent No.3. It was the ca the case of the appellant that the offending v ding vehicle was being driven by resp by respondent No.2 in a rash and negligent m gent manner, because of which the o the offending vehicle had gone out of cont f control of respondent No.2 and Ra nd Ranjit Singh had fallen down and had bee been crushed under the offending v ding vehicle and died at the spot. The learned Tribunal, on th on the basis of pleadings and evidence a ence adduced before it, had conclud oncluded that the appellant was unable to p le to prove any rash and negligent dri ent driving on part of respondent No.2; and ; and hence the claim petition came came to be dismissed. However, the appell appellant was awarded Rs.50,000/ 000/- as compensation under Sections 14 ons 140 and 141 of the Act under ‘N der ‘No Fault Liability’. Hence, the present resent appeal. Aggrieved of the sam e same, the appellant is seeking enhanceme ncement of the compensation so award awarded to the appellant. It is inter alia submitted by ted by learned counsel for the appellant th llant that the learned Tribunal was in as in patent error in concluding that there w there was no rashness and negligence igence on the part of respondent No.2 as th as the appellant had even register egistered an FIR No.254 dated 07.8.1996 .1996 (Ex.P-1) under Sections 279 279 and 304-A IPC at Police Station Gan on Gangrar, District Chittorgarh. Lea . Learned counsel contends that from this v this very fact, it is clear that the respo respondent No.2 was driving the offending v ding vehicle in a rash and negligent m igent manner. It is contended that from this d this document, it is established that that the accident had occurred due to the r the rash and negligent driving of re of respondent No.2. Ex.P-1 was not rebutte rebutted by the respondents before t efore the learned Tribunal. It is VIJAY ASIJA 2025.07.25 20.20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-2248-2001 (O & M) 3 accordingly rdingly prayed that the impugned gned Award be modified and compensati ensation awarded to the appellant may nt may be enhanced. Learned counsel r for respondent No.3-Insurance re Company o pany opposes the submissions made made on behalf of the appellant and submi submits that it is well established p shed position in law that mere registration tration of FIR would not imply any y any negligence on part of the driver. Lea r. Learned counsel submits that no ev t no evidence whatsoever was led by the appe e appellant to show that there was an as any fault of respondent No.2. It is accor accordingly prayed that the impugn pugned Award does not suffer from any in any infirmity; and the present appeal m ppeal may be dismissed. No other argument is made on ade on behalf of the appellant. I have heard learned counsel unsel for the parties and perused the case fil ase file. I find no merit whatsoever in ever in the submissions made on behalf of th lf of the appellant. The accident had taken plac n place in Rajasthan. The FIR (Ex.P-1) w 1) was also registered in Rajasthan asthan. As per the appellant, the deceased ased was travelling in the offen offending vehicle as second driver/clean r/cleaner. Although, it has been p een pleaded on behalf of the appellant t llant that the accident had taken p ken place due to the rash and negligent d gent driving of respondent No.2, how 2, however, perusal of the entire record reve rd reveals that there is not one whit e whit of evidence on record to remotely in tely indicate any rashness or negligenc gligence on the part of respondent No.2. The . The appellant had adduced no d no evidence whatsoever to substantiate tantiate her said claim. The appellant ellant had only produced PW1 to PW3 to pro to prove the alleged income of the de the deceased. No doubt, the FIR (Ex.P-1) w 1) was tendered in evidence. Howe However, as per the impugned VIJAY ASIJA 2025.07.25 20.20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-2248-2001 (O & M) 4 Award, eve rd, even the same was not proved as ed as per law as no investigating officer or er or any other connected person w son was examined to prove the same. Thus . Thus, there is nothing on record to ord to indicate that the accident had taken p taken place due to rash and negligent d igent driving of respondent No.2. Needless t less to say, the burden was upon th pon the appellant to lead some evidence to ence to show that the accident had oc had occurred due to the fault of respondent ndent No.2. In the absence of any f any evidence to this effect, it cannot be h ot be held that the accident in questio estion had occurred due to any negligence gence on part of respondent No.2. In this view of the matter, I fi er, I find no error in dismissal of the claim claim petition by the learned Tribu Tribunal. In fact, awarding of Rs.50,000/ 0,000/- to the appellant under the ‘N the ‘No Fault Liability’ is more than fair an fair and just in the facts and circumsta umstances of the case. As such no ground is mad s made out to interfere in the impugned A gned Award.
Decision
In view of the above, the prese e present appeal is dismissed. Pending application(s), if any if any also stand(s) disposed of. , 2025 July 25, 20 Vijay Asija Whether spea Whether Repo r speaking/reasoned Yes / No r Reportable Yes / No ( NIDHI GUPTA ) JUDGE VIJAY ASIJA 2025.07.25 20.20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document