FAO-2997-2002 (O&M) - 1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 248 FAO-2997-2002 (O&M) Date of decision: 21.07.2026 RAM NIWAS and Others ....Appellants Versus MAHIPAL and Others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHVIR SINGH RATHOR Present : Mr. Tarun Yadav, Advocate and Mr. Pawan Kumar, Advocate for the appellants. Mr. Ayushi Jain, Advocate for Mr. Abhishek Goyal, Advocate for the Insurance Company. YASHVIR SINGH RATHOR. J.(Oral) CM-11713-CII-2002 For the reasons mentioned in the application, the same is allowed subject to all just exceptions. Delay of 26 days in filing the appeal is condoned. FAO-2997-2002 1. The present appeal has been instituted by claimants against the Award dated 13.11.2001 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Rewari (for short “Tribunal”), vide which MACT Case No.13 of 1998, filed by the appellants/claimants on account of death of Lala Ram in a motor vehicle accident due to rash and negligent driving on the part of respondent No.1 while driving offending jeep No.DL-5CA-6935, was dismissed. 2. Case of the claimants is that on 19.01.1998 at about 7:30 pm, deceased Lala Ram, who was uncle of claimants No.1 to 3 and brother of claimant No.4 was coming from village Dahina to Rewari in jeep bearing registration No.DL-5CA-6935, which was being driven by respondent No.1-Mahipal. On the way, a tractor-trolley was parked near the petrol pump of village Siha and in the meanwhile, one Maruti car was seen coming from the opposite side. However, on seeing the Maruti car coming, respondent No.1 started driving his jeep at a high AMANDEEP GOSAIN 2026.07.23 15:05 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment FAO-2997-2002 (O&M) - 2- speed and in a rash and negligent manner, as a result of which his jeep collided with the trolley of the parked tractor. Lala Ram suffered multiple injuries on his person alongwith other passengers travelling in the said jeep but he died at the spot. The occurrence was witnessed by one Surender Singh, son of Juglal, who was also travelling in the same jeep and on his statement, FIR No.33 dated 20.01.1998, Police Station Khol, under Sections 279/304-A IPC was registered. It is submitted that claimants were dependent upon the deceased who was a sweetmaker/Halwai and 45 years of age. He used to earn Rs.10,000/- per month by sale of milk and by manufacturing sweets and used to live with them in their house. He used to treat claimants No.1 to 3 as his sons and a sum of Rs.10 lakhs has been claimed as compensation. 3. Respondents No.1 and 2 in their joint written statement have denied the factum of accident or rash and negligent driving on the part of respondent No.1. Respondent No.3 in its written statement has denied that the jeep in question had met with an accident with a parked trolley or that the deceased was travelling in the said jeep. It has been admitted that the offending jeep was insured with it. It is further submitted that claimants are not the class-I heirs of the deceased and they are not entitled to any compensation and dismissal of the claim petition was sought. 4. From the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by learned Tribunal:- 1. Whether the death of Lala Ram was the direct result of the motor vehicular accident which took place on 19.1.1998 on account of rash or negligent driving on the part of respondent No.1, the driver of the offending jeep No.DL-5CA-6935?OPP AMANDEEP GOSAIN 2026.07.23 15:05 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment FAO-2997-2002 (O&M) - 3- 2. If issue No.1 is proved, to what amount of compensation the petitioners are entitled and from whom?OPP. 3. Relief. 5. Thereafter, the parties led their oral as well as documentary evidence in support of their respective claims. 6. Under issue No.1, Tribunal held that claimants have failed to examine author of the FIR or any eye-witness of the accident and they have thus failed to prove that the accident in question had taken place due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by respondent No.1. Under Issue No.2, it was held that claimants are Class-II heirs and they are not entitled to any compensation and the claim petition was dismissed. 7. Feeling aggrieved, the appeal in hand has been preferred. The material on file has been perused and parties have been heard. 8. Regarding the accident in question, FIR No.33 dated 20.01.1998, under Sections 279/304-A IPC was got registered at Police Station Khol on the statement given to the police by Surender Singh, which has been tendered in evidence as Ex. PW6/A and proved by Head Constable Prithivi Singh, while appearing as PW6. As such, it is established that FIR was registered regarding the accident in question on the statement of Surender Singh. In addition to this, claimants have also examined PW2-Monika Rani, Addl. Ahlmad in the Court of JMIC, Rewari and PW3-Raja Ram, Ahlmad, who deposed that the case arising out of the said FIR No.33 dated 20.01.1998, under Sections 279/304-A IPC registered at Police Station Khol, titled State Vs. Mahipal is fixed for prosecution evidence and this part of their testimony shows that respondent No.1 has been challaned by the police for the offences under Sections 279/304-A IPC. AMANDEEP GOSAIN 2026.07.23 15:05 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment FAO-2997-2002 (O&M) - 4- 9. On the other hand, respondents examined said Surender Singh, who was author of the FIR as RW1, who stated that no accident of the offending vehicle took place with the tractor/trolley and Lala Ram-deceased did not suffer any injury in his presence. He also denied having lodged any FIR with the police. However, PW6 has categorically stated that FIR Ex. PW6/A was registered in Police Station Khol on the statement of said Surender Singh and it is further established from the evidence of file that respondent No.1 has been challaned by the police for causing death of Lala Ram by way of his rash and negligent driving and he has been chargesheeted by the Court. In 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 9, ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd V. Rajni Sahoo it has been held that the police records including FIRs and chargesheets are admissible evidence for determining the negligence, which is to be determined on the basis of preponderance of probabilities, not beyond reasonable doubt. It was held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that the Tribunal and High Court were justified in relying on such documents to conclude that the driver of the offending vehicle was rash and negligent. The contention of Insurance Company that the respondent connived with the police to prepare a fraudulent charge sheet was rejected due to lack of evidence. 10. Besides this, it is also well settled that if police after conducting investigation challans the driver for causing death due to rash and negligent driving, it is safe to assume that the accident had taken place due to rash and negligent driving on his part. Reference in this regard can be made to 1993(2) PLR 109 – Girdhari Lal Vs. Radhe Shyam and others. Hon’ble Supreme Court in 2018 ACJ 1300, Mangla Ram Vs. Oriental Insurance Company Limited has held AMANDEEP GOSAIN 2026.07.23 15:05 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment FAO-2997-2002 (O&M) - 5- that negligence on the part of driver of the offending vehicle is required to be decided by the Tribunal on the touch stone of preponderance of probability and not by standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt and filing of charge-sheet against driver of the offending vehicle points towards his complicity in driving the vehicle rashly and negligently. Besides this, it is also well settled that Tribunals established under the Motor Vehicles Act, are not governed by the rules of procedure envisaged by the Civil Procedure Code and the Tribunals are required to evolve their own procedure to meet the ends of justice, based on the principles of justice, equity and good conscience. The proceedings before the Tribunal are of summary nature wherein enquiry has to be conducted and the evidence is not to be scrutinized, in the manner as is done in a civil or in a criminal case. In a criminal case, the rule is of proof beyond reasonable doubt and in civil cases, the rule is of preponderance of probabilities and if there is some evidence before the Claims Tribunal to prove a fact, no nicety, doubt or suspicion should weigh with it, in deciding a Motor Accident Claims case. Besides this, Hon’ble Supreme Court while deciding Special Leave to Appeal (C) No.10351/2019 titled Ranjeet & Anr. vs. Abdul Kayam Neb & Anr., vide judgment dated 25.02.2025 has held that once a charge sheet has been filed and the driver has been held to be negligent, no further evidence is required to prove that the offending vehicle was being negligently driven by its driver. Even if the eye-witnesses are not examined, that will not be fatal to prove negligence of the driver of offending vehicle resulting in the accident. In 2025 INSC 600 Law Finder Doc Id 2725125 titled Meera Bai and others vs. ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Ltd. and anr., the FIR was registered against the driver of the offending vehicle and final report under AMANDEEP GOSAIN 2026.07.23 15:05 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment FAO-2997-2002 (O&M) - 6- Section 173 Cr.P.C., was presented against him to prosecute him for causing accident by way of rash and negligent driving. However, no eyewitness was examined by the claimants to establish that the accident in question had taken place due to rash and negligent driving on the part of driver of the offending vehicle and High Court dismissed the claim petition. However, Hon’ble Supreme Court held that in motor accident claim cases, the absence of eyewitness does not automatically negate the establishment of negligence when FIR and charge-sheet have been filed against the driver of the offending vehicle. It was observed that the owner and driver had filed written statement before the Tribunal denying rash and negligent driving on the part of driver but the driver did not step into the witness box to support his version that the accident had not taken place due to his rash and negligent driving. Hon’ble Supreme Court further held that eyewitnesses are not available in all the cases and since, the FIR was lodged and the charge-sheet was filed against the owner/driver of the offending vehicle, it cannot be held that negligence was not established and the decision of the Tribunal vide which, the owner and driver had been held liable was restored. In the present case also, respondents have no doubt examined RW1 Surender Singh, who was author of the FIR and he has denied having lodged any FIR or having witnessed any accident but respondent No.1 has not dared to step into the witness-box and to state his case on oath and offer himself for cross-examination. It is well settled that if a party does not step into the witness box and offer himself for cross-examination, an adverse inference has to be drawn against him to the effect that the case set up by him is not true. In these circumstances, there is no reason to disbelieve the unrebutted evidence led by petitioners. AMANDEEP GOSAIN 2026.07.23 15:05 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment FAO-2997-2002 (O&M) - 7- 11. As a result of afore-said discussion, I am of the considered opinion that the learned Tribunal has gravely erred while relying upon the testimony of RW1-Surender Singh, particularly because respondent No.1 had already been challaned by the police for causing the accident by way of his rash and negligent driving. He had not dared to step into the witness-box and to state his case on oath and offer himself for cross-examination. In these circumstances, the filing of the chargesheet against respondent No.1 was a strong circumstance in coming to the conclusion that accident in question had taken place due to rash and negligent driving on his part. Resultantly, finding on issue No.1 is not sustainable and the same is accordingly reversed and this issue is decided in favour of claimants. 12. Next point is to be decided as to whether claimants are entitled to compensation or not. Claimant No.4 is the brother of the deceased, while claimants No.1 to 3 are nephews of deceased and sons of claimant No.4. As such, claimants No.1 to 3 are not dependent upon the deceased. However, Hon’ble Supreme Court in (2022) 14 SCC 712, N. Jayasree Vs. Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Company Ltd, while defining the term “legal representative” has held as under:- "16. In our view, the term "legal representative" should be given a wider interpretation for the purpose of Chapter XII of the MV Act and it should not be confined only to mean the spouse, parents and children of the deceased. As noticed above, the MV Act is a benevolent legislation enacted for the object of providing monetary relief to the victims or their families. Therefore, the MV Act calls for a liberal and wider interpretation to serve the real purpose underlying the enactment and fulfil its legislative intent. We are also of the view that in order to maintain a claim petition, it is sufficient for the claimant to establish his loss of dependency. Section 166 of AMANDEEP GOSAIN 2026.07.23 15:05 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment FAO-2997-2002 (O&M) - 8- the MV Act makes it clear that every legal representative who suffers on account of the death of a person in a motor vehicle accident should have a remedy for realization of compensation." 13. Hon’ble Supreme Court in 2025 Livelaw (SC) 309 Sadhana Tomar & Ors. Vs. Ashok Kushwaha & Ors. has held that a legal representative is one, who suffers on account of death of a person due to motor vehicle accident and need not necessarily be a wife, husband, parent or child. The term legal representative under Motor Vehicles Act should not be given a narrow interpretation to exclude those persons as claimants who were dependent on the deceased’s income. The father and sister, being financially dependent were held to be legal representatives under the Act entitling them to compensation. 14. As a result of the afore-said discussion, it is held that claimant No.4 namely Sanwat Singh, who is brother of the deceased was dependent upon him and he is entitled to compensation. However, claimants No.1 to 3, who are sons of claimant No.4 cannot claim themselves to be dependent upon their deceased uncle during the life time of their father and they are thus not entitled to compensation. 15. Now, the point to be decided is as to how much compensation the claimants are entitled to. As per version of claimants, deceased was a sweetmaker/Halwai and used to earn Rs.10,000/- per month by selling sweets and by sale of milk. However, no cogent and convincing evidence has been led to prove the income except the bald and self-serving statement of the claimant and no reliance thus can be placed upon the testimony of claimants regarding income of the deceased. However, the evidence led by the claimants that deceased was a sweetmaker has gone unrebutted and it has to be assumed that deceased was a AMANDEEP GOSAIN 2026.07.23 15:05 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment FAO-2997-2002 (O&M) - 9- sweetmaker/Halwai by profession. Hon'ble Supreme Court in (2022) 1 SCC 198, Chandra alias Chander alias Chanda Ram and another Vs. Mukesh Kumar Yadav, decided vide judgment dated 01.10.2021 has held that merely because claimants are unable to produce documentary evidence to show the monthly income of the deceased is not a ground to discard the oral evidence and in such cases, the Court is required to ensure just compensation based on preponderance of probabilities. Minimum wage notification may serve as a yardstick but cannot be the sole basis for assessing the income. Moreover, it is also well settled that where the victim/deceased belongs to unorganized sector, strict proof of income is not mandatory and notional income can be reasonably assessed based on the social status and facts and circumstances of the case. Hon’ble Supreme Court in 2019 (5) RCR (Civil) 884, Chameli Devi and others Vs. Jivrali Mian and others, has assessed the monthly income of a carpenter to be Rs.5000/- per month in the year 2001 and it was further held that in such cases where deceased is engaged in such type of profession, claimants can only lead oral evidence. 16. In the present case, the accident had taken place on 19.1.1998 and as such some amount of guess work has to be applied while assessing the monthly income of the deceased and keeping in mind the social status of the deceased and the fact that he was a sweetmaker, his income is assessed as Rs.3,000/- per month. 17. In 2025 INSC 366, Sunita Vs. Vinod Singh, it has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that in the absence of material indicating to the contrary, the age mentioned in the post mortem report can be relied upon to determine the age of the deceased. As per postmortem report Ex. PW7/1, the age of the deceased AMANDEEP GOSAIN 2026.07.23 15:05 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment FAO-2997-2002 (O&M) - 10- was 45 years and accordingly, age of deceased is taken as 45 years. As such, 25% amount has to be added to the monthly income of the deceased towards future prospects in view of law laid down in 2017 (16) SCC 680 National Insurance Co. Ltd Vs. Pranay Sethi and Other, which takes his income to Rs.3,750/- (Rs.3,000/- + Rs.750/-). 18. Deceased was unmarried and as such, 50% of the earnings has to be deducted towards personal and living expenses as per law laid down in 2009(6) SCC 121 Sarla Verma and others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another and after deducting the same, the monthly loss of dependency comes out to Rs.1,875/- (Rs.3,750/- – Rs.1,875/-) and the annual loss of dependency comes out to Rs.22,500/- (Rs.1,875/- × 12) and multiplier of 14 has to be applied in view of the guidelines laid down in Sarla Verma’s case (supra), and after applying the same, the total loss of dependency comes out to Rs.3,15,000/-. 19. In addition to this, claimant No.4, who is brother of deceased is held entitled to Rs.15,000/- towards ‘loss of estate’ and Rs.15,000/- on account of ‘funeral expenses’, as per law laid down in Pranay Sethi’s case (supra), which takes the compensation to Rs.3,45,000/-. 20. So far as compensation on account of loss of consortium is concerned, it is well settled that the same is awarded for the emotional loss of companionship. Whether brothers and sisters of deceased are entitled to it depends upon the siblings’ age and dependency. In the present case, claimant No.4 was married at the time of death of his brother, who was unmarried and there is thus no loss of companionship and he is not entitled to compensation on account of loss of consortium. AMANDEEP GOSAIN 2026.07.23 15:05 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment FAO-2997-2002 (O&M) - 11- 21. Counsel for respondents No.1 and 2 had tendered in evidence the copy of driving licence of respondent No.1 as Ex.R2, which shows that the same had been issued by Licensing Authority, Rewari on 31.12.1997 and it was valid up to 30.09.2017 and respondent No.1 had been authorized to drive scooter, motorcycle, car and jeep. As such, respondent No.1 possessed a valid and effective driving licence to drive a jeep. No evidence has been led by the Insurance Company to prove that the insured has violated the terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy and Insurance Company is thus liable to indemnify the insured and the liability of all the respondents shall be joint and several. 22. Resultantly, the compensation to be awarded to claimant No.4 is assessed as under:- Sr. No. Heads 1. Age of deceased 45 years 2. Monthly income of deceased Rs.3,000/- per month 3. Future prospects @ 25% Rs.750/- 4. Total monthly income Rs.3,750/- 5. Number of dependents 1 6. Deduction towards personal expenses of the deceased Rs.1,875/- (50%) 7. Monthly loss of dependency Rs.1,875/- 8. Annual loss of dependency Rs.22,500/- (Rs.1,875/- × 12) 9. Multiplier 14 10. Loss of dependency Rs.3,15,000/- (Rs.22,500/- × 14) 11. Compensation under conventional heads i.e loss of estate and funeral expenses to claimant No.4 Rs.30,000/- 12. Total Compensation Rs.3,45,000/- 13. Interest 9% 23. Resultantly, claimant No.4 is held entitled to a sum of Rs.3,45,000/- as compensation along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of AMANDEEP GOSAIN 2026.07.23 15:05 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment FAO-2997-2002 (O&M) - 12- filing of claim petition i.e. 28.07.1998 till realization along with proportionate interest payable by respondents No.1 to 3 jointly and severally. 24. Registry is directed to email the authenticated copy of the award to the respondent Insurance Company in terms of directions issued by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Writ Petition (Civil) No.534 of 2020 titled Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Versus Union of India and others, decided on 16.03.2021 and Insurance Company shall comply with the directions as issued under Clause (F) of the said judgment. 25. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. (YASHVIR SINGH RATHOR) 21.07.2026 JUDGE amandeep Whether speaking/reasoned. : Yes/No Whether Reportable. : Yes/No AMANDEEP GOSAIN 2026.07.23 15:05 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment