FAO-1541 IN THE HIG 134 Deepa Rani Gurvinder CORAM: H Present: - NIDHI GUP 1. against the d dated 19.04. Act, 1988 Accident Cla vide impugn year-old wid parents of d accident. Th widow and m as proforma 2. died due to t took place 41-2025 -1- HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HA FAO Date o Rani and other Versus nder Singh and another M: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDH Mr. Archit Garg, Advocate for Mr. Shantanu Bansal, Advocate I GUPTA, J. Present appeal has been filed t the dismissal of their claim petition 19.04.2017filed under Sections 166 an (hereinafter referred to as ‘the ent Claims Tribunal, Kurukshetra (for mpugned Award dated 19.11.2024.Th ld widow; ii) 18-year-old daughter s of deceased-Anil Kumar who was nt. The present appeal has been filed and minor children; whereas parents forma respondents No. 2 and 3 herein It was the pleaded case of the ue to the injuries suffered by him in on10.1.2017 at 7:10 AM due to D HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO-1541-2025 Date of Decision:26.02.2026 .…Appellants ....Respondents NIDHI GUPTA te for vocate for the appellants. n filed by the appellant-claimants tition bearing MACP Case No. 205 166 and 140 of the Motor Vehicles ‘the Act’), by the learned Motor (for short ‘the learned Tribunal’) The 05 claimants are the: i) 43- ghter; iii) 16-year-old son; and iv) o was 41 years old at the time of n filed by claimants No. 1 to 3 i.e. arents of the deceased are impleaded erein. of the claimants that deceased had m in a motor vehicular accident that ue to rash and negligent driving of ants 205 icles otor ) iv) e of i.e. ded had that g of RISHU KATARIA 2026.03.05 10:32 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. FAO-1541 Car XUV M ‘the offendin Gurvinder S adduced bef question had bearing regis 3. appellant th accident in q of the offend has failed to would show heading of t provision rel basis. The sa a liability u become liabl or permanen vehicle”, in legal heirs o out of the u assigned a m attribution o offending ve 41-2025 -2- UV Mahindra bearing registration No. ffending vehicle’) which is owned and nder Singh. However, upon appraisa ed before it, the learned Tribunal ha on had not taken place due to rash an g registration No. HR-06-AA-0080 be It is, inter alia, submitted b ant that the learned Tribunal was i nt in question had not taken place due offending vehicle by respondent No. iled to appreciate that the bare perusa show that the same is a special provis g of the Section inasmuch as, it is st ion relating to the payment of compe The said provision opens with a non o ility upon the owner of the vehicle e liable to pay, compensation to the a manent disability owing to an accident in the manner detailed in the secon eirs of the deceased/victim. It is subm the use of motor vehicle”, as used ed a meaning, that “the mere user o tion of faulty or attribution of neg ing vehicle. From the expressions, tha No. HR-06-AA-0080 (hereinafter ed and driven by respondent No. 1- praisal of pleadings and evidence nal had concluded that accident in ash and negligent driving of vehicle being driven by the respondent. itted by learned counsel for the was in error in holding that the ce due to rash and negligent driving t No. 1. Moreover, the ld. Tribunal perusal of Section 163-A of the Act provision as, it is so detailed in the it is stated that Section is a special compensation on structured formula non obstante clause and encumbers ehicle or the authorized insurer to o the aggrieved, in the case of death cident arising out of the “use of the second schedule to the victim or to s submitted that expression “arising s used therein, are naturally to be er of the vehicle”, irrespective of f negligence to the driver of the ns, that the attribution of fault to the after ence t in icle he the ving Act the cial ula bers r to h he r to ng be e of the the RISHU KATARIA 2026.03.05 10:32 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. FAO-1541 driver of the required to b 4. the learned T and spirit of beneficial le liberally. L amendments provisions o has failed to The factum o was well wi claim petitio Act, keeping for the appel 5. have heard l merit in the s 6. arguments o pleaded case para-No. 2 41-2025 -3- of the offending vehicle is neither r ed to be established. It is further submitted that in d arned Tribunal has failed to take into irit of the Act and the provisions the cial legislation and the provisions t ly. Learned counsel submits that ments of petition under Section 16 ions of Section 163-A of the Act. H iled to give due weightage to the pr ctum of death of Anil Kumar is not di ell within its jurisdiction to exercise petition under Section 166 to a petitio eeping in mind the intent of the Act. appellant prays for setting aside of the No other argument is raised o eard learned counsel and perused the in the submissions advanced by learned Although ld. Counsel for th ents on the merits of the matter, howe d case of the claimants before the lea of the impugned Award, is as foll “2. Brief facts of the cl 10.01.2017 at about 7.10 A alongwith Ravi Bhushan Pand waiting for a conveyance near ither required to be pleaded nor is at in dismissing the claim petition, into account the legislative intent ons thereof. It is argued that it is a ions thereof are to be interpreted that the Courts have allowed ion 166 by incorporating relevant ct. However, the learned Tribunal principle of just compensation. not disputed. As such, the Tribunal ercise its discretion to convert the petition under Section 163A of the e Act. Accordingly, learned counsel e of the impugned Award. ised on behalf of the appellants. I the case file in detail. I find no learned counsel for appellants. for the appellants has raised no , however, it bears mention that the the learned Tribunal as recorded in follows: - claimants's case is that on 0 A.M. deceased Anil Kumar andey and Amarjeet Singh were near Bus stand Ambala, to go to r is tion, is a wed vant unal . unal the the nsel I no no the d in on ar re to RISHU KATARIA 2026.03.05 10:32 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. FAO-1541 41-2025 -4- Panipat. In the meantime, th No.HR-06-AA-0080, which w respondent, reached there. A Pandey and Amarjeet Singh ask boarded the offending vehi (respondent) started driving th and negligent manner and witho The passengers asked the offen not to be negligent and rash. H kept on driving the offending ve manner and when the offendi Saha Fly over, it went out of c due to fast speed, the offe intersection and hit an eicher kacha portion on the other passengers received serious, g on their vital parts. All of th Hospital, where the doctors d dead and Shiv Kumar and Am MER Chandigarh. The acciden and negligent driving of the res At the time of death, dec age of 41 years and he was Laborate Pharmaceuticals Ind office at E-11, Industrial Area having annual income of Rs.f payee. A criminal case bearin with police Station Shahabad a the commission of offences pu 337, 338 and 304-A of the claimants were dependent upon lacs on the funeral and last rite e, the offending vehicle bearing h was being driven by the e. Anil Kumar, Ravi Bhushan h asked for a lift. All three of them vehicle. The offending driver g the offending vehicle in a rash without observing the traffic rules. offending driver to be careful and sh. However, the offending driver ng vehicle in a rash and negligent fending vehicle had just crossed t of control and turned turtle and offending vehicle crossed the icher canter, that was parked in ther side of the road. All the s, grievous and multiple injuries of them were rushed to General rs declared Anil Kumar brought Amarjeet were referred to PGI ident took place solely due to rash respondent. , deceased Anil Kumar was of the was Area Sales Manager, with India Ltd. having its registered Area Panipat. The deceased was Rs.five lacs. He was income tax earing FIR No.20 was registered ad against the offending driver for s punishable under Sections 279, the Indian Penal Code. All the upon him. They had spent Rs. two rites of the deceased.” ng he an m er sh es. nd er nt ed nd he in he ies al ht GI sh he ith ed as ax ed or 9, he o RISHU KATARIA 2026.03.05 10:32 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. FAO-1541 7. registered u 39/192(1), 1 statement of received inju that in the cr 10.1.2017, S categorically negligent dri Bhushan Pa Criminal Co bursting of offending v Report (Ex. place due to was damage the complain respondent N learned Sub acquittal dat judgment th identify the and were acc 8. sought to pr 41-2025 -5- Pursuant to the accident, an FIR red under Sections 279,337, 338 an (1), 146/196 IPC at Police Station ent of eye-witness Shiv Kumar S/o Sh ed injuries in the accident in question the criminal proceedings emanating f 017, Shiv Kumar had suffered a state rically testified that the accident had n ent driving of respondent No. 1. Anot an Pandey had also made a similar nal Court that the accident in quest of tyres and not due to rash a ing vehicle by respondent No. 1. E Ex. P-6), it is reported that the ac due to sudden bursting of front tyres amaged. Resultantly, in view of the ab mplainant, Shiv Kumar and other eye dent No. 1 was acquitted in FIR No Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, tal dated 16.04.2018. It has been ca ent that Shiv Kumar and Ravi Bhu y the accused person and had, theref ere accordingly declared hostile. However, before the learned T t to prove their claim by examining H FIR No. 20dated 10.01.2017 was 338 and 304-A IPC and Sections tation Sahahabad, on the basis of /o Shri Amar Singh, who had also uestion. However, it is to be noted ating from the said FIR no.20 dated tatement Ex. R-3 wherein he has had not taken place due to rash and Another eyewitness, namely, Ravi imilar statement before the learned question had taken place due to rash and negligent driving of the 1. Even as per the Mechanical the accident in question had taken tyres as well as one of the rear tyre the above said statements made by er eyewitnesses to the accident, the IR No. 20 dated 10.01.2017 by the istrate, Shahabad vide judgment of een categorically noted in the said vi Bhushan Pandey, had failed to therefore, falsified the prosecution rned Tribunal, the claimants have ning HC Devender Singh as PW-2, was ions s of also oted ated has and avi rned e to the ical ken tyre e by the the t of said d to tion have 2, RISHU KATARIA 2026.03.05 10:32 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. FAO-1541 who had poi ld. Tribunal not just the question, bu learned Trib concluded as 41-2025 -6- ad pointed out the above acquittal of ibunal has rejected the claim of the a st the aforestated statements of the ey on, but also the Mechanical Report d Tribunal keeping in view the en ded as follows:- “16. A perusal of copy of offending vehicle would prove well as one of the rear tyre we witnesses of the accident in d testified at criminal trial that caused due to rash and neglig and the accident in question to of the tyres. 17. This court is of the negligence of the offending dr claimants by leading cogen However, they have miserably f On the other hand, the respond onus of proving that the accide due to his rash and negligen certified copies of statement o criminal trial and also by mechanical report. It is submitt has been relied upon by the registration of FIR is of no Accident Claims Petitions a offending driver has to be prove cogent and clinching evidence, have miserably failed to prove. ittal of respondent No. 1. However, f the appellants taking into account the eyewitnesses to the accident in eport (Ex. P-6). Accordingly, the the entirety of the said facts had of mechanical report of the rove that both the front tyres as e were damaged and both the eye in dispute had also categorically the accident in dispute was not gligent driving of the respondent n took place due to sudden burst the considered view that the g driver was to be proved by the ogent and clinching evidence. bly failed to discharge their onus. pondent has fairly discharged his cident in question was not caused ligent, act by placing on record ent of both the eye witnesses in by relying upon copy of the mitted that the mechanical report the claimants themselves. Mere no consequences in the Motor s and the negligence of the roved by the claimants by leading nce, which in this case, claimants ove.” ver, ount t in the had he as ye lly ot nt rst he he ce. us. is ed rd in he rt re or he ng RISHU KATARIA 2026.03.05 10:32 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. FAO-1541 9. before the l them. Thus by the learne from a judg Limited Vs 251230 wher 41-2025 -7- Admittedly, Shiv Kumar has n the learned Tribunal by the claiman Thus, I find no ground is made to inte learned Tribunal in the Impugned Aw a judgment of this Court in “United ed Vs. Kamla Devi & Others” (P& wherein it has been held that: "5. It should still have be to take a decision uninfluence have come before the criminal which have come about on this judgment in a criminal court is the non-filing of a FIR is no involvement of the vehicle as fo not binding. While the Tribuna evidence which is brought befo decision, then the point that ha was any evidence worth its n come a finding that the partic the accident. It can be either th cannot be relied for he has co with the version given before for other evidence which wa Alternatively if any explanati witness as to why he deposed f court, even such an explanation enter a finding that the accide the particular insured's vehicle has been given by the witness a criminal court that he did no involved in the accident. He wo has not been produced as witness laimants for the reasons known to to interfere in the findings returned ed Award. I find support in my view nited India Insurance Company (P&H): Law Finder Doc Id # ve been possible for the Tribunal enced by any decision that may inal court. The several decisions this issue are to the effect that a rt is not binding on the Tribunal; s not material; even the fact of as found by the criminal court is bunal is competent to assess the before it and take an independent t has to be seen is whether there its name before the Tribunal to articular vehicle was involved in er that the version of Sitar Mohd. contradicted himself wholesale ore the criminal court or looked was placed before the Court. nation had been given by the sed falsehood before the criminal ation could have been accepted to cident took place only involving icle. In this case, no explanation ess as to why he stated before the id not know which vehicle was e would, on the other hand, defy ness n to rned iew any d # RISHU KATARIA 2026.03.05 10:32 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. FAO-1541 10. in “Shri Ra Others” FA under:- “ by L sp di ca th be fa w pe 41-2025 -8- that he ever made any such st court, necessitating the stateme court to be exhibited for contra It must be remembered a statem a witness is also on oath. If h was liable for perjury. If there the version elicited before the made before the criminal cour unworthy of acceptance. The rejected the whole evidence. If line from chief examination to was involved in the acciden something which is not a judic justice."” The above said view has be ri Ram General Insurance Compan FAO-2231-2014 decided on 03.1 “(6) This Court cannot loose sig by this Court in the case of Unite Limited versus Kamla Devi a specifically held that in case a different version before the Cour case from the statement made by the Tribunal, the testimony of su being accepted and the evidence fact, the learned Single Bench c witness and held that the said perjury.” ch statement before the criminal tement made before the criminal ontradiction before the Tribunal. atement in criminal court case by If he was uttering falsehood, he there was contradiction between the Tribunal to the statement court then such a witness will be The Tribunal could have simply e. If it was going to pick out one n to say that the insured's vehicle ident, the Tribunal was doing udicial function but a travesty of as been reiterated by this Court ompany Limited Vs. Jeeto Devi & n 03.12.2019, wherein it is held as e sight of the judgment rendered nited India Insurance Company vi and others, wherein it was se an eye witness gives totally ourt conducting trial in criminal e by the said eye witness before of such a witness is unworthy of nce should be simply rejected. In ch came down heavily on such said witness is also liable for ourt i & d as RISHU KATARIA 2026.03.05 10:32 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. FAO-1541 11. claim petitio Section 163 view of the Himachal R Kumar Nay while referri appellant for reads as und 41-2025 -9- As regards argument of the app petition filed under section 166 of n 163-A of the Act, the said prayer i he judgment of a Division Benc chal Road Transport Corporation Nayyer and others, Law Finder referring to a judgment of the Hon’ble ant for conversion has been rejected. as under:- “3. On the last date of hear had placed reliance on the judg Girish Bhai Soni and others Company Ltd., 2004(2) RCR P.L.R. 271 (S.C.) to contend th claimants themselves that the in was more then Rs.40,000/- per justified in treating the petitions 163A of the Act and awarding into the question of negligenc respondents had sought tim judgment. He has not been subsequent judgment of the Sup view. 4. In this view of the matt impugned award dated 6.11.20 Tribunal could not have trea Section 166 of the Act as petitio Act by restricting the income stands settled by the Apex Co (supra). Accordingly, we set asi he appellant regarding conversion of 66 of the Act, to a petition under rayer is also liable to be rejected in Bench judgment of this Court in ration and another vs. Baldev inder Doc Id # 120930, wherein on’ble Supreme Court prayer of the ected. Relevant para Nos. 3 and 4, hearing, counsel for the appellant judgment of Apex Court in Deepal thers v. United India Insurance CR (Civil) 466 : (2004-2) 137 nd that in view of the claim of the he income of the deceased/injured per annum, the Tribunal was not itions to be petitions under Section ding compensation without going gence. Counsel for the claimant- time to go through the said een able to refer to any other Supreme Court taking a contrary matter, we are satisfied that the 1.2003 cannot be sustained. The treated the petitions filed under etitions under Section 163A of the ome of Rs.40,000/-. This issue x Court in Deepal Girish’s case t aside the impugned award dated n of nder d in rt in ldev rein f the d 4, nt al ce 37 he ed ot on id er ry he he er he ue se ed RISHU KATARIA 2026.03.05 10:32 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. FAO-1541 12. meritless, is 13. 26.02.2026 rishu 41-2025 -10- 6.11.2003 and direct the Moto Panchkula to decide the petitio the Act in accordance with law. In view of the discussion abov ess, is dismissed. Pending application(s) if any als 2026 Whether speaking/reasoned Whether Reportable Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, etition filed under Section 166 of law.” n above, the present appeal, being any also stand(s) disposed of. ( NIDHI GUPTA ) JUDGE Yes/No Yes/No al, f eing RISHU KATARIA 2026.03.05 10:32 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment.