FAO-2156-2000 IN T 216
National Insuranc Smt. Bachhi Dev CORAM : HON Present: Mr. for t Non Resp Mr. Mr. for r ***
AMARINDER S 1. The Company seekin Motor Accident Tribunal’) where account of the de has been allowed 2. Succ p.m., Joginder R Sulakhani on his 2000 (O&M) -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJA AT CHANDIGA FAO Res Pro Up surance Company Ltd. Versus hi Devi and Others HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMAR Mr. N.K. Manchanda, Advocate
for the appellant.
None for the respondent Nos. 1 to 4. Respondent No.5 ex-parte. Mr. Ishan Cooner, Advocate, for
Mr. J.S. Cooner, Advocate,
for respondent No.6. **** DER SINGH GREWAL, J. The present appeal has been fi seeking to set aside the Award dated ident Claims Tribunal, Panipat (here whereby the claim petition filed by res the death of Joginder Ram in a motor llowed Succinctly, the facts of the case are nder Ram (since deceased) was proc on his scooter bearing registration No.
PUNJAB AND HARYANA
DIGARH FAO-2156-2000 (O&M) Reserved on: 28.01.2026
Pronounced on:05.02.2026
Uploaded on:05.02.2026
...Appellant
... Respondents MARINDER SINGH GREWAL 1 to 4. een filed by the appellant–Insuran dated 20.01.2000 passed by the learn (hereinafter referred to as ‘the learn by respondents No. 1 to 4 -claimants motor vehicular accident on 22.04.199 se are that on 22.04.1998 at about 11: s proceeding from Shahbad to villa on No.CHE-8993. When he reached ne ents
nsurance e learned learned mants on 04.1998, ut 11:45 o village hed near PANKAJ KUMAR 2026.02.05 17:30 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh FAO-2156-2000 the Markanda O DAV-3077 (here No.5- Jaspal Sing said vehicle was the impact, Jogin the spot. Conseq children of the 20.01.2000, vid compensation to appellant–Insuran owner of the Ma to pay the said a filed the present a 3. Lear the impugned Aw and material infir counsel that res specifically plead of the deceased h Tribunal. Furthe offending vehicle FIR was initially offending vehicle Singh. Moreover deceased at ₹3,50 2000 (O&M) -2-
nda Old Bridge on G.T. Road, a Ma (hereinafter referred to as offendin al Singh, came from behind and struc e was being driven in a rash and negli , Joginder Ram sustained multiple inju onsequently, the respondent Nos-1 to f the deceased, filed a petition claimin , vide the impugned award pas ion to the tune of ₹4,29,500/- was aw Insurance Company along with resp he Maruti Van No. DAV-3077, respec said amount. Affected by the same, esent appeal. Learned counsel for the appellant– ed Award, passed by the learned Trib al infirmities and is liable to be set asid at respondents No.1 and 2, while a y pleaded that the accident occurred d ased himself, which aspect has been Furthermore, the finding of negligen vehicle is based on misreading and m nitially registered against an unknown vehicle was introduced subsequently, reover, the learned Tribunal erred in as ₹3,500/- in the absence of any docum
, a Maruti Van bearing registration N fending vehicle), driven by responde struck the scooter of the deceased. T negligent manner. As a consequence le injuries and succumbed to the same 1 to 4 -claimants being the wife a laiming compensation for the same. O d passed by the learned Tribun was awarded in their favour, holding t respondent Nos.5 and 6 (driver a respectively) jointly and severally liab ame, appellant–Insurance Company h –Insurance Company contended th d Tribunal, suffers from patent illegal set aside. It was submitted by the learn hile admitting the factum of accide rred due to the rash and reckless drivi been completely ignored by the learn gligence recorded against the driver and mis-appreciation of evidence, as t known person. The involvement of t ently, on the statement of PW-2-Bal d in assessing the monthly income of t documentary evidence and further err tion No. spondent sed. The uence of same at wife and ame. On Tribunal, lding the iver and lly liable pany has nded that illegality e learned accident, s driving e learned driver of e, as the nt of the Baldev e of the her erred PANKAJ KUMAR 2026.02.05 17:30 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh FAO-2156-2000 in applying the heads of consor unjustified. Lastl are based on sur therefore, the imp 4. Learn question did not of the offending the issues are er been wrongly hel 5. There 6. Havin paper book with contentions raise infirmity in the of law that regist under the Motor negligence on th though the appe FIR, the same do proved by the te witnessed the oc proceeding on s registration No. 3 scooter, resulting 2000 (O&M) -3-
g the multiplier of 15. Additionally onsortium, loss of estate and fune Lastly, the findings recorded by the on surmises and conjectures, are not the impugned Award deserves to be se Learned counsels for the respondent N id not occur due to any rash or neglige nding vehicle and that the findings re are erroneous. It is further submitted gly held liable without proper apprecia There is no representation on behalf o Having heard the learned counsel for with their able assistance, this Court s raised on behalf of the appellant do findings recorded by the learned registration of FIR is not a sine qua n Motor Vehicles Act, and the claima on the basis of preponderance of p appellant has raised an objection re me does not affect the case of the claim the testimony of PW-2 Baldev Singh the occurrence. He has categorically on scooter bearing registration No. No. 3077 came from behind in a rash sulting in the fall and death of the d
nally, the amounts awarded under t d funeral expenses are excessive a by the learned Tribunal on all the issu e not sustainable in the eye of law an be set aside. ndent No.6 submitted that the accident egligent driving on the part of the driv ngs recorded by the learned Tribunal mitted that respondent No.6-owner h preciation of the evidence on record. ehalf of respondents No. 1 to 4. 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. It is a settled propositi ua non for maintaining a claim petiti laimants are only required to establi e of probabilities. In the present ca tion regarding alleged infirmities in t e claimants, as negligence has been du Singh, who was present at the spot a rically deposed that the deceased w n No. 8993 when Maruti Van beari a rash and negligent manner and hit t the deceased at the spot. PW-2 furth nder the sive and he issues law and, cident in he driver bunal on wner has cord. using the that the finds no oposition petition establish ent case, es in the een duly spot and sed was bearing d hit the 2 further PANKAJ KUMAR 2026.02.05 17:30 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh FAO-2156-2000 stated that the testimony remain be elicited so as recorded against PW-2 Baldev Sin make and numb proceedings were reliance may be p v. Badrinarayan FIR is not an abs lodging the same record inspires co proved the occur precedence over regard, reliance m Insurance Comp 2021, decided on 7. Signi evidence to rebu occurred due to Tribunal has rig jointly and sever Tribunal has con of the deceased. T the learned Tribu 2000 (O&M) -4-
t the driver of offending vehicle fl remained intact in cross-examination a so as to discredit his presence or vers gainst an unknown vehicle but durin ev Singh was recorded by the police, w number of the offending vehicle, s were initiated against the driver of th ay be placed upon the judgement of th yan (2011) 4 SCC 693, wherein it an absolute requirement in motor acci e same cannot be a ground to deny co ires confidence. The testimony of an occurrence and involvement of the of over bald denials by the driver or ow iance may be placed upon the judgem ompany Limited v. Narender Sing ded on 07.02.2022 (2022:PHHC:0099 Significantly, the appellant-insurance o rebut the ocular version or to subs ue to the negligence of the decease as rightly fastened the liability upon severally. With regard to the quant as considered the pleadings and eviden ased. Though respondent Nos.1 to 4- Tribunal assessed the monthly incom
icle fled away after the accident. H ation and no material contradiction cou or version. Though the FIR was initia t during the investigation, statement olice, who unimpeachably mentioned hicle, on the basis of which crimin er of the offending vehicle In this rega t of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ra rein it has been held that lodging of or accident claim cases and that delay eny compensation when the evidence of an independent eye-witness, who h the offending vehicle, is to be given d or owner or Insurance Company. In th udgement of this Court in United Ind Singh and others, FAO No.3007 :009951). urance company did not lead any coge o substantiate the plea that the accide eceased himself and thus, the learn upon respondent No.1 to 3 before quantum of compensation, the learn evidence relating to the age and incom -claimants asserted a higher incom income of the deceased at ₹3,500/-. T ent. His on could initially ement of ioned the criminal is regard, Ravi ng of an delay in dence on who has iven due y. In this d India .3007 of cogent accident learned efore it, learned d income income, . The PANKAJ KUMAR 2026.02.05 17:30 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh FAO-2156-2000 deduction toward compensation aw and funeral exp prevalent at the ti 8. In the and several liabil well settled that advantage of obs and documentary shown to be per appellate scrutiny 9. In vie ground to interfe and the same is u 10. Misc. February 05, 20 Pankaj* 2000 (O&M) -5-
towards personal expenses and applica ion awarded under the conventional h al expenses is minimal and strictly t the time of passing of the impugned In the absence of proof of any statut l liability upon the driver, owner and i d that the learned Tribunal, being th of observing the demeanour of the w entary evidence in the first instanc be perverse or based on no evidence crutiny. In view of the aforesaid facts and c interfere with the award dated 20.01.20 e is upheld. Resultantly, the present a Misc. application pending, if any, als (AM , 2026 Whether speaking/reaso Whether reportable
application of multiplier of 15 as well ional heads of consortium, loss of esta strictly in accordance with the norm gned Award. statutory defence, the fastening of jo r and insurer is legally justified. It is al ing the Court of first instance, had t the witnesses and appreciating the o nstance, and unless its conclusions a idence, the same deserve due weight and circumstances, this Court finds .01.2000 passed by the learned Tribun esent appeal is dismissed. ny, also stands disposed of. AMARINDER SINGH GREWA JUDGE g/reasoned : Yes/No : Yes/No s well as of estate e norms of joint It is also had the the oral ions are eight in finds no Tribunal EWAL) PANKAJ KUMAR 2026.02.05 17:30 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh