FAO-1950-1998 IN T 105
Naresh Kumar Ram Niwas and O CORAM : HON Present: Mr. for t Mr. Mr. for r Mr. for r *** AMARINDER S 1. The seeking setting a Motor Accident whereby the claim 2. For their status befor 3. Su afternoon, the pe to his village Ram Sita Sham Colon 1998 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJA AT CHANDIGA FAO Dat Versus s and Others HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMAR Mr. J.C. Malik, Advocate
for the appellant. Mr. Rishav Jain, Advocate Mr. Kanish Jindal, Advocate
for respondents No. 1 to 3. Mr. Lalit Garg, Advocate
for respondent No. 4-Insurance Com ****
DER SINGH GREWAL, J. (ORAL) The present appeal has been pref tting aside of the impugned Award ident Claims Tribunal, Jind (herein re e claim petition preferred by the appel For the sake of convenience, the par before the learned Tribunal. Succinctly, the facts of the case the petitioner, a student of Class VIII ge Ram Nagar after school hours in a Colony on Railway Road, Safidon, PUNJAB AND HARYANA DIGARH FAO-1950-1998 (O&M) Date of Decision:16.01.2026
...Appellant
... Respondents
MARINDER SINGH GREWAL e Company.
RAL) n preferred by the appellant-claima ward dated 01.06.1998 passed by t rein referred to as the learned Tribuna appellant-claimant has been dismisse the parties shall be referred to in terms case are that on 26.07.1995, in t s VIII studying at Safidon, was returni rs in a jeep. When the jeep stopped ne fidon, for some students to alight, t claimant, d by the ribunal), smissed. terms of , in the returning ped near ight, the PANKAJ KUMAR 2026.01.23 10:54 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh FAO-1950-1998 appellant-claiman At that time, a tru the “offending v respondent No.1 resulting in mult Sections 279 and pleaded that the underwent surge thereafter. A cla seeking compen claimant, a mino the driver, respo respondent No.4 claim petition ca 01.06.1998. Henc 4. Lear by the learned conjectures and s and corroborativ and fully suppor nothing materia Sukhchain Singh the learned Tribu discrepancy or in in relying upon t 1998 (O&M) -2- laimant also got down and was standi e, a truck bearing registration No. HR ding vehicle”), coming from the Sa t No.1 in a rash and negligent ma n multiple injuries. Consequently, FIR 79 and 337 IPC was registered again at the appellant-claimant remained surgery on 17.01.1996 and continu A claim petition under Section 166 mpensation of ₹10,00,000/-, was f minor, through his natural guardian/ respondents No.2 and 3 as the own t No.4-Oriental Insurance Company Lt tion came to be dismissed by the le . Hence, the present appeal. Learned counsel for the appellant co arned Tribunal are erroneous, illega s and surmises and on a complete mis orative evidence on record, as the ap upported the claim petition. Further, aterial could be elicited to discre Singh, an eye-witness, also corrobor Tribunal discarded their testimonies y or infirmity. It is further urged that upon the opinion of PW-1 Dr. A.K. S standing on the correct side of the roa o. HRM-3955 (hereinafter referred to the Safidon side and being driven nt manner, hit the appellant-claima ly, FIR No.338 dated 28.07.1995 und against respondent No.1. It was furth ained admitted in different hospita ontinued to receive medical treatme 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 198 was filed on behalf of the appella rdian/father, against respondent No.1 e owners of the offending vehicle a any Ltd., as the insurer thereof. The sa the learned Tribunal vide award dat llant contends that the findings record illegal and perverse, being based e mis-appreciation of the reliable, coge the appellant himself appeared as PW rther, despite lengthy cross-examinati discredit his testimony, while PW rroborated the case of the appellant, y onies without pointing out any mater d that the learned Tribunal gravely err A.K. Suri, that the injuries could be t the road. red to as riven by claimant, 95 under s further ospitals, reatment ct, 1988, ppellant- t No.1 as icle and The said rd dated recorded ased on e, cogent as PW-6 mination e PW-7 llant, yet material ely erred ld be the PANKAJ KUMAR 2026.01.23 10:54 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh FAO-1950-1998 result of a fall, ig prevails over med by the learned T legally unsustain event, such omis Further, the learn minor discrepanc are natural afte 26.07.1995 and t the learned Trib concluded that th on account of be Lastly, the findin as the appellant r rendered incapab the finding on Is support of his su through Next F Riyas v. P.N. Sh others v. Sher Si Insurance Co. L AIR 1980 SC 13 No. 1074 of 19 Kanta, 1986 ACJ 1998 (O&M) -3- fall, ignoring the settled position of law er medical opinion. It is also submitte rned Tribunal on account of non-prod ustainable, as the same stood incorpor omission, if any, amounts merely to e learned Tribunal erred in disbelievin repancies in their statements while ov l after lapse of time, particularly and their statements were recorded d Tribunal admitted that an acciden that the same occurred due to the appe t of being hit by the truck, rendering findings recorded on Issue No.2 are a ellant remained hospitalized, underwen ncapable of carrying on his ordinary on Issue No.7, being based upon iss his submissions, learned counsel pla xt Friend v. Manual C.M. & Anr. . Shinosh & Anr., Civil Appeal No. er Singh and others, FAO No. 3351 o. Ltd. and others, 2010(1) ACC 1 C 1354; Lakhu Singh and another f 1987 decided on 29.08.2007; an ACJ 481. of law that trustworthy ocular eviden bmitted that the adverse inference draw production of the written complaint corporated in the FIR (supra) and, in a ely to a deficiency and not an illegali elieving the eye-witnesses on account hile overlooking that such discrepanc larly when the accident occurred orded on 02.04.1997. Moreover, thou ccident had taken place, it perverse e appellant falling from the jeep and n dering the finding wholly unsustainab 2 are also assailed as perverse inasmu derwent multiple surgeries and has be inary pursuits of life, and consequen ssues No.1 and 2, is also illegal. sel placed reliance upon Sona (Mino Anr., Civil Appeal No.2316 of 202 l No. 6544 of 2024; Satwant Kaur a 3351 of 2002; Jai Prakash v. Nation C 1 (SC); N.K. Bros. v. M. Karum ther v. Uday Singh and others, FAF and Ram Parkash and another evidence ce drawn plaint is d, in any llegality. count of epancies urred on r, though erversely and not tainable. nasmuch has been equently llegal. In Minor) f 2025; ur and ational rumai, FAFO ther v. PANKAJ KUMAR 2026.01.23 10:54 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh FAO-1950-1998 5. Per impugned award passed after prop learned Tribunal returned well-rea any interference drawn by the Tri appeal, being dev 6. Havin paper book with contentions raise infirmity in the fi dismissed the cla establish that the accident involvin were more proba award shows th documentary evi Dr. A.K. Suri an injuries and had in his cross-exam a fall could not b jeep in which he which rendered 1998 (O&M) -4- er contra, learned counsels for award does not suffer from any ille r proper appreciation of the evidence ibunal has rightly assessed the oral an reasoned findings on all the issue erence by this Court. According to the Tribunal are based on correct appr ng devoid of merit, is liable to be dism Having heard the learned counsel for with their able assistance, this Court s raised on behalf of the appellant do the findings recorded by the learned T the claim petition primarily on the g hat the injuries suffered by him were volving offending vehicle, driven by r probably caused due to a fall from an ws that the learned Tribunal minut ry evidence. The medical evidence le uri and other doctors indeed establish d had undergone surgeries. However, examination that the possibility of su d not be ruled out. Additionally, the c ich he was travelling was heavily o dered the possibility of a fall due to for the respondents submit that t y illegality or perversity and has be dence on record. It is contended that t oral and documentary evidence and h e issues involved, which do not call f ng to learned counsel, the conclusio ct appreciation of facts and law, and t e dismissed. sel for the parties and after perusing t Court is of the considered view that t nt do not merit acceptance and finds arned Tribunal. The learned Tribunal h the ground that the appellant failed were resulting from a motor vehicu n by respondent No.1, and that the sam om an overloaded jeep. A perusal of t minutely examined both the oral a ence led by the claimant through PW tablished that the appellant had suffer ever, Dr. A.K. Suri categorically stat y of such injuries having been caused , the claimant himself admitted that t vily overcrowded with school childre ue to it being overloaded. The learn that the has been that the and has t call for clusions , and the using the that the finds no unal has failed to vehicular the same al of the oral and gh PW1- suffered lly stated aused by that the children, learned PANKAJ KUMAR 2026.01.23 10:54 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh FAO-1950-1998 Tribunal was, th while appreciatin 7. Furth non-examination witness to the oc was the best pers from the vehicle was involved at a by the claimant c the said driver w deliberate withh inference against 8. Furth rightly disbelieve state that PW-7 w the conduct of contradicts the st the accident he, No.1, the driver explanation wha apprehending a escape instead of stated that the dr These two irreco appellant-claiman 1998 (O&M) -5- as, therefore, justified in taking this eciating the manner of occurrence. Further, a serious infirmity in the c nation of the driver of the jeep, who the occurrence. The said driver was a st person to depose regarding the man ehicle, the position of the claimant o ed at all. The Tribunal has noticed tha mant could even disclose the particula iver was withheld from the witness b withholding of the best available ev gainst the claimant and substantially w Furthermore, the testimony of PW believed for cogent reasons. Not only 7 was present at the spot, but the ct of the alleged truck driver is int the statement of the claimant. PW- nt he, with the help of nearby shop driver of the offending truck, and t n whatsoever was furnished by h ing a person who had caused a serio tead of handing him over to the police the driver of the truck fled from the sp irreconcilable versions strike at the laimant and clearly indicate that PW ng this circumstance into considerat the claimant’s case is the unexplain , who was the most natural and mater r was admittedly present at the spot a e manner in which the claimant alight ant on the road and whether any tru ced that none of the witnesses examin rticulars of the jeep or its driver and th ness box without any explanation. Su able evidence gives rise to an adver tially weakens the version set up by him PW-7 Sukhchain Singh has also be t only did the appellant-claimant fail ut the version given by PW-7 regardi is internally inconsistent and direc -7 Sukhchain Singh stated that af shopkeepers, apprehended responde and thereafter allowed him to go. N by him as to why, after alleged a serious accident, he chose to let h police. On the other hand, the claima the spot immediately after the accide at the root of the case set up by t t PW-7 was not a truthful eyewitness a ideration xplained material spot and alighted ny truck xamined and that on. Such adverse by him. lso been nt fail to egarding directly that after spondent . No allegedly let him claimant accident. p by the tness and PANKAJ KUMAR 2026.01.23 10:54 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh FAO-1950-1998 that the true man therefore, justifie 9. More (supra). Though the appellant di contrary, he adm consciousness o circumstances, it reported to the p made by him aft that the claimant truck much late occurrence alread the FIR (supra) involvement of t accident had tak petition. The on was heavily on th 10. On concluded that th and negligent dri the result of a fal negligence was compensation w under Section 16 1998 (O&M) -6- e manner of occurrence has been supp justified in doubting his presence and r Moreover, serious inconsistencies we hough it was stated to be based on a w ant did not acknowledge having giv e admitted that he had become unco ess only after about five to six ces, it is wholly inexplicable as to the police on 28.07.1995 on the basi after two days of the accident. Th aimant admittedly came to know abo h later, whereas the FIR (supra) already mentioned the same. These c pra) highly doubtful and cast a nt of the offending vehicle. Registrat ad taken place in the same way as i he onus to prove the involvement of t y on the appellant-claimant, which he On an overall appreciation of the that the claimant failed to prove that th ent driving of truck No.HRM-3955 and f a fall from the overcrowded jeep. C was decided against the claiman ion was also answered against him, ion 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act n suppressed. The learned Tribunal w e and rejecting his testimony. ies were noticed with regard to the F on a written complaint of the appella ng given any such complaint. On t e unconscious at the spot and regain six days in the hospital. In su as to how the matter could have be he basis of a written statement alleged . The learned Tribunal further not w about the registration number of t recorded within two days of t hese circumstances render the origin ast a serious shadow on the alleg gistration of FIR does not prove that t y as it has been depicted in the cla nt of the offending truck in the accide ch he failed to discharge. of the evidence, the learned Tribun that the accident was caused by the ra 55 and that the injuries were more like eep. Consequently, issue No.1 regardi laimant, and issue No.2 relating t him, as entitlement to compensati Act is founded on proof of negligenc nal was, the FIR ppellant, On the regained In such ave been allegedly r noticed er of the s of the origin of alleged that the he claim accident Tribunal the rash re likely egarding ating to ensation gligence. PANKAJ KUMAR 2026.01.23 10:54 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh FAO-1950-1998 These findings ar by the material o been pointed out relied upon by l same were rende from the facts of 11. In vie ground to interf learned Tribunal dismissed. January 16, 202 Pankaj* 1998 (O&M) -7- ings are pure findings of fact, based on terial on record. No perversity, illegal ed out which would warrant interferen n by learned counsel for the appellan rendered on their own facts and circu cts of the present case. In view of the aforesaid facts and c interfere with the impugned award ribunal and the same is upheld. R (AMAR 6, 2026 Whether speaking/reaso Whether reportable ased on detailed reasoning and support illegality or misreading of evidence h erference by this Court. The judgemen pellant do not advance his case, as t d circumstances, which are distinguish and circumstances, this Court finds award dated 01.06.1998 passed by t ld. Resultantly, the present appeal AMARINDER SINGH GREWAL) JUDGE g/reasoned : Yes/No : Yes/No upported ence has gements e, as the nguished finds no d by the ppeal is ) PANKAJ KUMAR 2026.01.23 10:54 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh