FAO-4217-2001
IN T 235
Avtar Singh Wade Singh and CORAM: HON Present: Mr. for t Non Mr. for r *** AMARINDER S 1. The seeking reversal Accident Claims Tribunal), where the motor vehic injuries, was dism 2. Learn Tribunal has gros and negligent dr unsustainable. Fu injuries in the acc offending car str 2001 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJA AT CHANDIGA FAO Dat h versus h and Others HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMAR Mr. Baljinder Singh, Advocate
for the appellant. None for respondent No.1. Mr. Ajit Kumar, DAG, Haryana
for respondent Nos. 2 & 3. *****
DER SINGH GREWAL, J. (ORAL) The present appeal has been pref versal of the impugned Award dated Claims Tribunal, Chandigarh (herein whereby the claim petition filed by the vehicle accident dated 04.10.1999 as dismissed. Learned counsel for the appellant as grossly erred in holding that the acc ent driving of respondent No.1, whi ble. Further, the appellant proved by the accident which occurred at a turnin car struck the rear portion of the sco PUNJAB AND HARYANA
DIGARH FAO-4217-2001 (O&M) Date of Decision:28.01.2026
...Appellant
... Respondents
MARINDER SINGH GREWAL RAL) n preferred by the appellant-claima dated 01.10.2001 passed by the Mo (hereinafter referred to as the learn by the appellant–claimant, arising out .1999 in which he sustained multip llant-claimant submits that the learn the accident did not occur due to the ra 1, which rendered the impugned awa ed by cogent evidence that he sustain ning where the right front side of t the scooter on which the appellant w claimant, Motor learned ng out of multiple learned the rash d award sustained de of the lant was PANKAJ KUMAR 2026.02.02 17:16 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh FAO-4217-2001
riding as a pillion No.1. Furthermo non-registration o to lodge an FIR registration canno counsel placed re Assuarace Co. Insurance Co. L Allianz General PHHC:068640 Additionally, the establishes rash a evidence of PW and the injuries Tribunal. 3. Per impugned award passed after prop learned Tribunal returned well-rea any interference 4. Havin paper book with contentions raise infirmity in the 2001 (O&M) -2- pillion, hence, clearly establishing ne hermore, the learned Tribunal wrongl ation of a criminal case, ignoring that n FIR as respondent No.1 was in g cannot negate proved negligence. In s aced reliance upon Ravi v. Badrinaray Co. Ltd. v. Inderjit Singh (2021 o. Ltd. v. Narender Singh and Oth neral Insurance Co. Ltd. v. R 40 and Smt. Bindu Singh v. Hari P ly, the consistent testimony of PW rash and negligent driving of the offe f PW-2 Dr. Narinder Kumar corrobora juries suffered, which has not been pr 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 rence by this Court. Having heard the learned counsel for with their able assistance, this Court s raised on behalf of the appellant do n the findings recorded by the lear ing negligence on the part of responde rongly drew an adverse inference fro g that the appellant was pressurized n government service, and such no ce. In support of this submission, learn arayan 2011 (4) SCC 693; New Ind 2021) PHHC:032530; United Ind Others (2022) PHHC:009951; B Ranjit Kaur and Others (201 ari Pratap Singh 2023 (159) ALR 39 f PW-1 Karnail Singh, an eyewitne he offending vehicle. Lastly, the medic rroborates the occurrence of the accide een properly appreciated by the learn 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 e issues involved, which do not call f sel for the parties and after perusing t Court is of the considered view that t nt do not merit acceptance and finds e learned Tribunal. The appellant h spondent nce from rized not uch non- , learned India India ; Bajaj (2016) R 394. ewitness, medical accident e learned that the has been that the and has t call for using the that the finds no llant has PANKAJ KUMAR 2026.02.02 17:16 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh FAO-4217-2001
miserably failed petition. Admitte the alleged accid registration of proceedings since does not hold th lodged by the ap thereon. There is pursued or that subsequent actio substance in the s 5. The registration of a Vehicles Act has absolute requirem the part of the conspicuously ab appellant do not a belated stage o trustworthy evid Rakesh Aggarwa appellant-claiman witness at the spo in the present proceedings were 2001 (O&M) -3- failed to prove the occurrence in t dmittedly, no FIR was registered aga accident. The explanation sought to b of the FIR is that he was pres s since respondent No.1 was a governm old the field. The record reveals that the appellant against respondent No. here is no material on record to sugges r that its withdrawal was compelled t action, it can reasonably be pres in the said complaint. The argument raised by the coun of an FIR is not fatal to a claim ct has no merits. While it is true tha quirement, the claimant is nevertheles f the driver of the offending vehicl sly absent in the present case. Even t o not advance his case, as in those ma stage or negligence of the driver wa y evidence. Rather, the testimony o garwal, Advocate proves that the dr laimant was riding as pillion, was ne the spot is not denied by PW-1 i.e. dri esent case, neither negligence has s were initiated, and therefore, the clai e in the manner pleaded in the cla d against respondent No.1 in respect ht to be offered by the appellant for no s pressurised not to initiate crimin overnment servant. The said explanati ls that although a police complaint w nt No.1 but no further action was tak suggest that the said complaint was ev pelled. Rather, in the absence of a e presumed that the police found counsel for the appellant that no claim under Section 166 of the Mot rue that registration of an FIR is not rtheless required to prove negligence vehicle by reliable evidence, which Even the judgements relied upon by t se matters either FIRs were registered er was duly established by cogent a ony of independent eye witness, S the driver of the scooter, on which t was negligent and presence of said e i.e. driver of the aforesaid scooter. Thu has been proved nor any crimin he claim fails on this count. laim espect of for non- criminal planation laint was as taken was ever of any und no hat non- e Motor is not an gence on which is n by the istered at gent and ess, Sh. hich the said eye er. Thus, criminal PANKAJ KUMAR 2026.02.02 17:16 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh FAO-4217-2001
6. At th meaning thereby of the offending must be establish the claimant has learned Tribunal, the demeanour evidence in the f or based on no ev 7. In vie ground to interfe and the same is u January 28, 202 Pankaj* 2001 (O&M) -4- At the outset, it may be noticed tha ereby that the burden of proof lies up nding vehicle and negligence of its dr tablished by cogent, consistent and rel nt has failed to discharge this burde ibunal, being the Court of first instanc nour of the witnesses and appreci n the first instance, and unless its con n no evidence, the same deserve due w In view of the aforesaid facts and c interfere with the award dated 01.10.20 e is upheld. Resultantly, the present a (AMA 8, 2026 Whether speaking/reaso Whether reportable ed that actori incumbit onus proban lies upon the claimant. The involveme f its driver are foundational facts, whi nd reliable evidence. In the present ca burden. It is also well settled that t instance, had the advantage of observi ppreciating the oral and documenta its conclusions are shown to be perver due weight in appellate scrutiny. and circumstances, this Court finds 1.10.2001 passed by the learned Tribun esent appeal is dismissed. AMARINDER SINGH GREWAL JUDGE g/reasoned : Yes/No : Yes/No obandi, olvement which ent case, that the bserving mentary perverse finds no Tribunal AL) PANKAJ KUMAR 2026.02.02 17:16 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh