05.2026 Romesh Chander hander Sharma & Anr. v. Sarabjit Singh an ents & Ors.

Judgment

1. The instant appeal has been fi The een filed by the appellants-claima claimants challenging the g the award dated 05.12.2003 passe passed by the learned Motor Accid Accident Claims Tribunal ibunal, Nawanshahr (hereinafter refe er referred to as the learned Tribun Tribunal) whereby the clai he claim petition preferred by the ap the appellants under Section 166 of 66 of the Motor Vehicles A icles Act, 1988 seeking compensation nsation for death of son of appellants, llants, has been dismissed. ssed.

2. Briefly stated, the case of the appell Brie appellants is that on 01.11.1996 at ab 6 at about 7:00 PM, Rajiv K ajiv Kumar, son of the appellants, alo ts, along with Iqbal Singh, was travell travelling on scooter bearin bearing registration No.PB-08-L-2554 2554 towards village Binjon via Ban ia Banga. When they reach reached near the bus stand of village village Bahar Majra and were proceed roceeding tractor-trolley, a matador bearin bearing registration No.PB-07-C- -0460 behind a

PANKAJ KUMAR 2026.05.21 16:24 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh FAO-3280-2004 2004 (O&M) -2-(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1) (cid:1) (hereinafter refe r referred to as “the offending veh g vehicle”), allegedly being driven riven by respondent No.1 t No.1 in a rash and negligent mann manner, came from behind and stru nd struck against their sco ir scooter. Owing to the impact, the ct, the scooter rammed into the trac e tractor- trolley moving a ving ahead of it. Both the occupants s pants sustained injuries in the occurre ccurrence and were shifted shifted to Civil Hospital, Phagwara, wara, where Rajiv Kumar was decl declared brought dead. A ad. An FIR with respect to the incid e incident was registered on 17.11.19 .11.1996. The claim petitio petition filed by the appellants, how , however, came to be dismissed by ed by the learned Tribunal, ibunal, giving rise to the present appea appeal.

3. Learned counsel appearing on beh Lea n behalf of the appellants contended t nded that the learned Trib d Tribunal committed a grave err e error in placing reliance upon upon the statements record recorded before the Criminal Court, Court, despite the settled proposition osition of law that finding indings recorded in criminal procee proceedings are not binding upon c pon civil proceedings. It w s. It was argued that Iqbal Singh, who , who was himself injured in the accid e accident and examined be ned before the Tribunal, categorically ically deposed that the offending mata g matador had hit their sco ir scooter from behind, as a consequ onsequence whereof the scooter collid ollided with the tractor actor-trolley moving ahead. The said e said testimony sufficiently establis stablished rash and negligen egligent driving on the part of responde spondent No.1. It was further submit submitted that the learned arned Tribunal wrongly drew an adv an adverse inference from the fact t fact that AW-9 Madan M dan Mohan did not come forward to g rd to get recorded his statement when when the police was condu conducting investigation and recordi recording statements of other persons ersons on

01.11.1996, thou though he was present there. Rather Rather, emphasis ought to have been been laid upon the testimo estimony of Iqbal Singh, being the so the sole eye witness and injured witne witness, whose version, a sion, according to learned counsel, d nsel, deserved greater evidentiary va ary value than the stateme tatements of other witnesses. It was t was also argued that the testimony imony of AW-6 Hari Kris ri Krishan had been discarded on w on wholly untenable grounds mer s merely PANKAJ KUMAR 2026.05.21 16:24 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh FAO-3280-2004 2004 (O&M) -3-(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1) (cid:1) because he faile e failed to disclose the registration ration numbers of the scooter and and the matador.

4. On the quantum of compensation, On ation, learned counsel for the appella appellants submitted that t that the deceased was serving as g as a Government Teacher and w and was additionally enga y engaged as a Radio and Television vision Artist with All India Doordars ordarshan besides being a ing a Singer, Actor and Compose mposer, thereby earning approximat oximately Rs.21,000/- per m per month. It was contended that sinc at since the deceased was 35 years of ars of age at the time of acc of accident, an addition of 50% towar towards future prospects was liable to able to be made, in view view of the judgment of the Hon Hon’ble Supreme Court in Natio ational Insurance Co. L o. Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi (2017) 1 7) 16 SCC. It was further argued t gued that after deducting o ting one-third amount towards person personal expenses, multiplier of 16 ou 16 ought to have been app en applied in terms of the judgment r ment rendered in Sarla Verma Vs. D s. DTC (2009) 6 SCC 12 C 121.

5. Service upon respondents No.1 and Serv .1 and 3 was dispensed with vide or ide order dated 21.02.2025

2.2025, whereas respondent No.2–In Insurance Company was proceed roceeded against ex parte v parte vide order dated 01.05.2026.

6. I have heard learned counsel for I ha l for the appellants and carefully go ully gone through the pape ance. e paper book with his able assistance.

7. The accident in question admittedly The ittedly occurred on 01.11.1996, wher , whereas the FIR came to me to be registered only on 17.11.199 .11.1996, i.e. after a delay of 16 days, days, on the statement of ent of Madan Mohan. He stated that d that at the relevant time he along w long with Hari Singh was s was standing outside his shop when when the alleged accident took place place and that photographs graphs of the scooter, tractor-trolley trolley and matador were also taken taken by them. However, ever, no such photographs were e ere ever produced before the lear e learned Tribunal. He fu He further admitted that the driver river of the offending vehicle, nam , namely PANKAJ KUMAR 2026.05.21 16:24 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh FAO-3280-2004 2004 (O&M) -4-(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1) (cid:1) Sarabjit Singh, w ngh, was already known to him and t and that the deceased was related to ted to his uncle’s family. D mily. Despite having knowledge rega e regarding the occurrence on the v the very next day, no sati no satisfactory explanation was furnis furnished for the inordinate delay of lay of 16 days in lodging ging the FIR.

8. Significantly, on the very day of Sign day of the occurrence, the police h olice had recorded the sta he statement of injured pillion ride n rider Iqbal Singh after he had b had been declared fit to m t to make a statement by the attendin ttending doctor. In the said statement, ement, he categorically stat stated that while overtaking the tra the tractor-trolley, the lights of a vehi a vehicle coming from the m the opposite side flashed into the to the eyes of the deceased, causing using the scooter to move move towards the right side and strike d strike against a kikkar tree. Notably, otably, he nowhere alleged lleged that the scooter had been h een hit from behind by the offend offending matador. Moreov oreover, AW-6 Hari Singh, who a who allegedly took photographs of hs of the scooter, tractor- -trolley and matador involved in t ed in the accident, failed even to discl o disclose the registration ration number of the scooter. Like . Likewise, AW-7 Iqbal Singh, wh h, while appearing before before the Criminal Court, reiterated terated substantially the same version ersion as narrated by him t him to the police during investigation igation, namely that the accident occur t occurred while overtaking rtaking the tractor-trolley, thereby ind by indicating that no other vehicle w hicle was involved in the n the occurrence. Consequently, the , the testimony of the sole alleged leged eye witness does not es not inspire confidence.

9. There is no quarrel with the settle Ther settled proposition of law that findi t findings recorded by a by a criminal court are not ipso f so facto binding upon a civil co vil court. Nevertheless, a c ss, a civil court is certainly entitled t titled to take into consideration the fa the facts, circumstances a ces and admissions emerging from from the criminal proceedings wh gs while determining civi g civil liability. In the considered o ered opinion of this Court, the lear e learned Tribunal has rig as rightly appreciated the evidence dence available on record and correc correctly PANKAJ KUMAR 2026.05.21 16:24 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh FAO-3280-2004 2004 (O&M) -5-(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1) (cid:1) concluded that that the appellants miserably failed iled to establish rash and neglig negligent driving on the pa the part of the driver of the offending nding vehicle. Consequently, dismissa smissal of the claim petition etition calls for no interference.

10. In view of the aforesaid discussion In v ussion and attending circumstances, t nces, this Court does not not find any illegality, perversit rversity or material irregularity in ty in the impugned award award dated 05.12.2003 passed by th by the learned Tribunal. Consequen equently, the present appea appeal, being devoid of merit, is hereb s hereby dismissed.

11. Pending application(s), if any, shall Pend , shall also stand disposed of. May 20, 2026 Pankaj* (AMARIN ARINDER SINGH GREWAL) JUDGE Whether speaking/reaso Whether reportable g/reasoned : : Yes/No Yes/No PANKAJ KUMAR 2026.05.21 16:24 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh