FAO No.821 of 1998 IN THE HIG Surinder Kaur & Dr. Mohan Dev S CORAM: HON’BL Argued by:- Mr. For t Mr. For r DEEPAK GUPTA, This appea learned Motor A filed under Sect granting compen holding that negl been established 2. Plead about 6.30 PM, A ing registration N driven by respon dent No.3. On th the vehicle struck and, despite prol CMC Ludhiana, s filed the present 998 Page N: 1 of 9 Pages HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HAR FAO No. 821 of 1998(O r & OTHERS Versus ev Saini & OTHERS Reserved on: 13.02.202 Pronounced on: 16.02 N’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA Mr. Naresh Kumar, Advocate For the appellants. Mr. Rajbir Wasu, Advocate For respondent No.2. TA, J. peal is directed against the award or Accident Claims Tribunal, Hoshiar Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles pensation of ₹50,000/- only under negligence on the part of the driver hed. Pleadings:The admitted factual po M, Amarjit Singh (since deceased) w ion No. DL1C-7370 from Bunga to spondent No.1 Dr. Mohan Dev and n the way, near village BhikOwal o truck against a Safeda tree. Amarjit prolonged treatment at Civil Hospit a, succumbed on 08.03.1994. The sent petition alleging that the acci ages HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH (O&M) …Appellant …Respondent .2026 2.2026 PTA ard dated 06.11.1997 passed by th shiarpur, whereby the claim petition icles Act, 1988 was disposed of b der the principle of no-fault liability iver of the offending vehicle had no l position is that on 20.12.1993 a d) was travelling in Maruti Car bea to Hoshiarpur. The car was bein and was owned by his wife, respo al on the Dasuya-Hoshiarpur road arjit Singh sustained multiple injurie ospital, Hoshiarpur and thereafter a The widow and two minor children accident was the result of rash and llants ents y the tition of by bility, d not 3 at bear- eing pon- road, uries er at ldren and YOGESH MEHTA 2026.02.16 16:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO No.821 of 1998 negligent driving and loss of contro 3.1 Resp petitioners were submitted an ap defect in the veh village BhikOwal brakes, he found tree. He maintain ical failure and n stated that he hi mained admitted deceased, being present claim wa 3.2 Resp 3.3 Resp statement allege therefore, insura 4. Ame of evidence that DL1C-7370 and n bearing CM-1198 before this Court 5. How tity or involveme admittedly being sured with respo essary to formall ered and decide DL1C-7370. 998 Page N: 2 of 9 Pages iving of respondent No.1 and also ontrol. Respondent No.1–driver contested ere estopped from maintaining the application stating that the accide vehicle. He pleaded that while driv wal, the steering wheel suddenly j und that they had failed, resulting ntained that the accident was cause nd not due to any rash or negligen e himself sustained multiple injurie itted in CMC Ludhiana for eight da ing his employee, used to travel w was false and frivolous. Respondent No.3 i.e. owner of the c Respondent No.2 i.e. insurance co lleged that driver did not have surance company had no liability to Amendment application :It has com at the correct registration numb nd not DL1C-7390 as mentioned in t 11982-CII of 2016 under Order VI R ourt seeking correction of the regist However, since there is no dispute ement of the vehicle bearing registr eing driven by respondent No.1, ow spondent No.2 at the relevant time mally allow the amendment. The m cided on the basis that the offend ages lso on account of failure of brake sted the claim by asserting that the the claim, as the widow had earlie ccident occurred due to mechanica driving the car at a slow speed nea nly jammed and, upon applying the lting in the vehicle striking against aused solely due to sudden mecha igent driving on his part. He furthe juries, became unconscious, and r t days. It was also pleaded that the el with him in the car, and that the he car took the same stand. e company in its separate written ave any valid driving licence and y to pay the compensation amount come on record during the cours umber of the offending vehicle wa in the claim petition. An application VI Rule 17 CPC has also been moved egistration number. ute whatsoever regarding the ide gistration No. DL1C-7370, which wa , owned by respondent No.3 and i time, this Court does not find it ne e matter shall, therefore, be consi fending vehicle was Maruti Car No rakes t the arlier nical near g the nst a han- rther d re- t the t the itten and unt. urse was ation oved iden- was d in- nec- nsid- r No. YOGESH MEHTA 2026.02.16 16:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO No.821 of 1998 6. Tribu discarded the tes and came to the At the same time confined the awa liability. 7.1 Cont award, learned c has erred in disca Singh, who were both witnesses h ing driven in a ra to establish negl lants, the Tribun grounds. 7.2 In th of direct rash & properly appreci self. It is pointed dent occurred du plea, it is argued the testimony of ought to have dr ure to maintain t maintenance of the respondents dence of regular plied. The mere o tained, it is argue 7.3 In su upon Gurdeep Ka 998 Page N: 3 of 9 Pages Tribunal Findings :The Tribunal, a e testimony of AW2 and AW4, who the conclusion that rash and neglige time, it noticed that the accident o award to compensation under Sect Contentions of appellants – claim ed counsel for the appellants–claim discarding the testimony of AW2 Da ere examined as eyewitnesses to t es had categorically deposed that t a rash and negligent manner and th negligence on the part of responde ibunal misdirected itself in rejectin In the alternative, learned counsel & negligent driving were to be reciate the legal effect of the stand nted out that respondent No.1 con d due to brake failure and jamming ued, is fortified by the Mechanical I y of respondent No.1 as RW1. In s e drawn an adverse inference again ain the vehicle in roadworthy condi of the vehicle was within the excl ents, and in the absence of any ser ular upkeep, the maxim res ipsa lo ere oral assertion of RW1 that the v rgued, was insufficient to discharge In support of the aforesaid submis ep Kaur v. Tarsem Singh, 2009 ACJ 3 ages al, after appreciating the evidence ho were projected as eyewitnesses gligent driving had not been proved nt occurred due to brake failure and Section 140 of the Act under no faul laimants : Assailing the impugned laimants contends that the Tribuna 2 Dalvinder Singh and AW4 Balwan to the occurrence. It is argued tha at the offending Maruti car was b nd that their evidence was sufficien ndent No.1. According to the appe cting their testimony on untenable sel submits that even if the version be doubted, the Tribunal failed to tand taken by respondent No.1 him consistently pleaded that the acc ming of the steering wheel. The said ical Inspection Report (Mark R1) and In such circumstances, the Tribuna gainst the driver and owner for fai ondition. It is contended that prope exclusive knowledge and control o service record or independent ev sa loquitur ought to have been a he vehicle was being properly mai rge the burden cast upon him. bmissions, reliance has been placed ACJ 314, wherein it was held by thi ence, sses, ved. and fault gned unal want that s be- icient ppel- able rsion d to m- acci- said ) and unal r fail- oper ol of t evi- n ap- ain- laced y this YOGESH MEHTA 2026.02.16 16:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO No.821 of 1998 court that where of negligence ma pathy v. Brundab tur was applied i justify an inferen 8. Resp the insurance co tor Vehicles Act, ing the claim. P Shukla, 2007(13) fastened in the a that the Tribuna not reliable eyew there remains no According to ld. translate into ne Tribunal was just ple of no-fault lia 9. Cons both the sides an Tribunal’s appre reached the spo have witnessed t the vehicle num does not inspire driving. 10. How vehicle in questio not disputed tha defence consiste and in his depos 998 Page N: 4 of 9 Pages here the mechanical report reveals e may arise. Further reliance has be ndaban Mishra, 1984 ACJ 59, wher ied in a case of brake failure, and it rence of negligence. Response by respondent – Insurer e company submits that in a petitio Act, proof of rashness and negligenc . Placing reliance upon Oriental I (13) SCC 476, it is argued that liabil he absence of cogent proof of neg unal rightly disbelieved testimony eyewitnesses to the occurrence. On s no independent evidence to est ld. counsel, the plea of mechanica o negligence, and in the absence o justified in restricting the award to lt liability. Consideration by this Court :Having s and re-appraisal of the record, th preciation of the so-called eyewit spot nearly an hour after the acc ed the occurrence. AW4 gave a va umber, the driver, or other mate pire confidence so as to independen However, the matter does not rest estion was under the exclusive cont that the accident occurred when t sistently taken by respondent No.1 position as RW1, is that when he ages eals defective brakes, a presumption s been placed on Godaabarish Sa here the principle of res ipsa loqu nd it was held that such defect ma rer : Per contra, learned counsel fo tition under Section 166 of the M gence is a sine qua non for maintai tal Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Premlata liability under Section 166 cannot be negligence. It is further contended ny of AW2 and AW4, as they wer . Once their testimony is discarded establish rash or negligent driving nical defect does not automaticall ce of positive proof of rashness, th d to compensation under the princ aving considered the submissions o d, this Court finds no infirmity in the ewitnesses. AW2 admitted that he accident. He could not, therefore a vague version without identifyin aterial particulars. Their testimon ndently establish rash and negligen rest there.It is not disputed that the control of respondent No.1. It is also en the car struck against a tree. Th No.1, both in his written statemen he attempted to apply the brakes ption Sat- oqui- may el for Mo- tain- lata ot be nded were rded, iving. ically , the rinci- ns of n the t he fore, ifying ony igent t the also . The ment akes, YOGESH MEHTA 2026.02.16 16:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO No.821 of 1998 they failed and s the car went ou chanical inspecti of brake vessels, wheel cylinder an 11. Plea loquitur:The cruc the driver of neg 12. It is cles Act, negligen of preponderanc ings before the C evidence are not the material on r statute. 13. The self”, is a rule o kind that ordina strumentality cau situations, an evi or owner to furn peatedly clarified applicability depe 14. In m trol of the driver not occur withou sumption by esta avoidable cause unsupported by fect, is insufficien 998 Page N: 5 of 9 Pages nd simultaneously the steering whe t out of control and struck the tree ction report (Mark R1), dated 02. sels, absence of brake seals, cracke er and locked steering. Plea of brake failure & the applicab crucial question is whether the me negligence in a claim under Section It is settled that in a petition under ligence must be established. Howev rance of probabilities and not beyo he Claims Tribunal are summary in not to be applied with rigidity. Th on record in a pragmatic manner c The doctrine of res ipsa loquitur, le of evidence, which operates in c dinarily would not occur in the abs y causing harm was under the exclus evidentiary presumption arises, sh furnish a satisfactory explanation. ified that the maxim is not to be in depends upon the factual matrix of In motor accident claims, where a river meets with an accident which thout negligence, the burden lies u establishing that the occurrence wa use despite exercise of due care. A by cogent evidence of proper mai icient to discharge that burden. ages wheel jammed, as a result of which tree. He further relied upon a m 02.02.1994, which records leakag acked brake oil pipe, non-functiona licability of the doctrine of res ipsa mere plea of brake failure absolve tion 166 of the Act. nder Section 166 of the Motor Veh wever, the standard of proof is tha beyond reasonable doubt. Procee ry in nature; strict technical rules o . The Tribunal is required to asses er consistent with the object of the meaning “the thing speaks for i in cases, where the accident is of absence of negligence and the i xclusive control of the driver. In such s, shifting the burden onto the drive ion. Hon’ble Supreme Court has r be invoked mechanicallyand that x of each case. e a vehicle under the exclusive co hich, in the ordinary course, would es upon the driver to rebut the pr e was the result of a sudden and u . A mere plea of mechanical failure maintenance and sudden latent d hich me- kage ional ipsa olves Vehi- that eed- es of ssess f the or it- of a e in- such river s re- its con- ould pre- d un- ilure, t de- YOGESH MEHTA 2026.02.16 16:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO No.821 of 1998 15. In ot at the same time given case, const inevitability lies s vehicle was prop there was no prio discoverable by e 16. In th used to maintain No service statio indicating when roadworthy. The about seven year greater vigilance 17. The pared nearly one by examining its the alleged defec such as leakage o functional wheel evidence of regu rather than inevi 18. The proper maintena the presumption nance of brakes owner, and failu cannot be treate ple of res ipsa loq 998 Page N: 6 of 9 Pages In other words, brake failure, by its time, it is not an automatic defenc onstitute an inevitable accident, but lies squarely upon the driver and ow properly maintained, that regular prior indication of defect, and that by exercise of reasonable care. In the present case, respondent No tain the car properly. No maintena ation official or mechanic has been hen the vehicle was last serviced o The car was a 1986 model as per years old at the time of accident. A nce in upkeep. The mechanical report relied upon one and a half months after the ac its author. More importantly, the efects were sudden or the result o ge of brake vessels, absence of brak heel cylinder ordinarily develop ov regular maintenance, may legitima nevitability. The plea of brake failure, unsup tenance and sudden latent defect, tion arising from the circumstances kes and steering mechanism is a co failure of such essential systems, eated as a neutral event. The presu a loquitur remains unrebutted. ages y itself, is not negligence per se, bu fence. Mechanical failure may, in , but the burden of establishing such d owner. It must be shown that the ular servicing was undertaken, tha that the defect was sudden and no t No.1 has merely asserted that he tenance record has been produced een examined. There is no evidence ed or whether it had been certified per the policy Ex.R3 and was thu t. A vehicle of such vintage demand upon by the respondents was pr e accident and has not been proved the report does not clarify whethe lt of gradual wear and tear. Defect brake seal, cracked oil pipe and non p over time and, in the absence o itimately indicate want of due car supported by cogent evidence o ct, is therefore insufficient to rebu nces of the accident. Proper maint a continuing duty of the driver and s, without proof of due diligence resumption arising under the princ , but , in a such t the that d not at he uced. ence tified thus ands pre- oved ether fects non- ce of care e of rebut inte- r and ence, rinci- YOGESH MEHTA 2026.02.16 16:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO No.821 of 1998 19. Cons discharge the bur and unavoidable must therefore b much as the vehi 20. The ability is, therefo 21. Quan from PSEB, esta ₹3,286/- and was cordingly comes 22. In vi preme Court in ture prospects is ment and below established incom deceased was a justified, thereby 23. The be made in accor v. Delhi Transpor dependents is th sonal expenses o to the family wor 24. Furt and affirmed in group of 36–40 y is calculated at 998 Page N: 7 of 9 Pages Consequently, this Court holds tha burden of establishing that the acc able mechanical defect despite exe re be held to have occurred due to vehicle was not kept in a roadworth The finding of the Tribunal restrict refore, set aside. Quantum: As regards quantum, the establishes that the deceased wa was 37 years of age at the time of es to ₹39,432/-. In view of the law laid down by th in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pra ts is mandatory, where the decea low 40 years of age. The Court hel ncome is required to be added tow s a permanent employee and 37 y reby taking the annual income to ₹ The deduction towards personal an ccordance with the structured guid sport Corporation, wherein it was is three, one-third of the income sh es of the deceased. After such ded works out to ₹39,432/-. Further, as per the multiplier table a in Pranay Sethi (supra), the app 40 years is 15. Applying the multipli ₹5,91,480/-. ages that respondent No.1 has failed to accident was the result of a sudden exercise of due care. The acciden e to rash and negligent driving ina orthy condition. tricting compensation to no-fault l the evidence of AW1, Senior Cler was drawing a monthly salary o e of accident. His annual income a y the Constitution Bench of the S v. Pranay Sethi, addition towards f ceased was in permanent emplo t held that in such cases 50% of th towards future prospects. Since the 37 years of age, addition of 50% i ₹59,148/-. al and living expenses is required to guidelines laid down in Sarla Verma was held that where the number o e should be deducted towards pe deduction, the annual contribution ble approved in Sarla Verma (supra appropriate multiplier for the ag ltiplier of 15, the loss of dependenc ed to dden ident inas- ult li- Clerk ry of e ac- e Su- s fu- ploy- f the e the 0% is ed to erma er of per- ution upra) age ency YOGESH MEHTA 2026.02.16 16:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO No.821 of 1998 25. As r surance Co. Ltd. v consortium alone accident in the p amounts prevaili awards granted three claimants, 26. A fu the conventional the principles ind view the time of 27. In ad jeet Singh remai demise on 08.03 supported by do been duly proved reflecting an amo 28. Alth was spent on the has been produc roborative eviden ₹1,25,000/- towa Singh, which app the case. 29. Acco [5,91,480 + 45,00 30. Afte no-fault liability, 998 Page N: 8 of 9 Pages As regards consortium, the Suprem Ltd. v. Nanu Ram clarified that cons lone but includes parental and filial he present case occurred in 1993, h vailing at the relevant time and in ted in similar cases of that period, nts, totalling ₹45,000/-, is considere A further amount of ₹10,000/- (₹ onal heads of funeral expenses and s indicated in Pranay Sethi (supra), s e of accident. In addition, the evidence on recor mained under treatment at CMC L 8.03.1994. The medical expenditur y documentary evidence in the for oved by AW3 Belan, Senior Accoun amount of ₹1,19,543.48. Although AW5 Smt. Surinder Kaur h n the treatment of the deceased, n duced in support of that assertion vidence, this Court deems it approp towards medical expenses incurred appears to be just and reasonable i Accordingly, the total compensat 5,000 + 10,000 + 1,25,000]. After deducting ₹50,000/- already lity, the enhanced compensation pa ages reme Court in Magma General I consortium is not limited to spousa filial consortium as well. Though the 3, having regard to the conventiona nd in order to maintain parity with iod, a sum of ₹15,000/- each to the ered just and reasonable. ₹ 5,000/- each) is awarded unde s and loss of estate, consistent with ra), subject to adjustment keeping in ecord clearly establishes that Ama C Ludhiana from 20.12.1993 till hi iture incurred during this period i form of Bill Ex. AW3/1, which ha counts Clerk of the Medical College ur has deposed that a larger amoun d, no additional documentary proo rtion. In the absence of further co ropriate to award a rounded sum o rred prior to the death of Amarjee ble in the facts and circumstances o nsation works out to ₹7,71,480/ ady awarded by the Tribunal unde n payable comes to ₹7,21,480/-. al In- ousal h the ional with o the nder with ing in mar- ill his od is has llege, ount proof cor- m of rjeet es of 480/- nder YOGESH MEHTA 2026.02.16 16:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO No.821 of 1998 31. Conc ants are held en interest @ 7.5% zation. The amo and shall be shar Misc 16.02.2026 Jiten Whe Whe Uplo 998 Page N: 9 of 9 Pages Conclusion :Consequently, the appe entitled to an enhanced compens .5% per annum from the date of fili mount shall be payable jointly an shared equally amongst the three cl Misc. applications if any stands disp hether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No hether reportable : Yes/No Uploaded on : February 16, 2026 ages appeal is partly allowed. The claim pensation of ₹7,21,480/- along with f filing of the claim petition till real and severally by the respondents e claimants. disposed of. (DEEPAK GUPTA) JUDGE m- with reali- ents, YOGESH MEHTA 2026.02.16 16:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document