IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO-723-2002 (O&M) BALBIR KAUR & ORS. ....Appellant Versus DHARAMBIR RANA & ORS. ...Respondents 1. Judgment reserved on 14.07.2026 2. Judgment pronounced on 30.07.2026 3. Judgment uploaded on 30.07.2026 4. Whether only operative part of the judgment is pronounced or whether the full judgment is pronounced. Full 5. The delay, if any of the pronouncement of full judgment and reason thereof. Nil CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHVIR SINGH RATHOR Present : Mr. Vinish Singla, Advocate for the appellants. Respondents No.1 and 2 proceeded ex parte vide order dated 22.04.2026. Mr. Vinod Gupta, Advocate and Mr. Aseem Aggarwal, Advocate for respondent No.3. YASHVIR SINGH RATHOR. J.(Oral) 1. The present appeal has been instituted by claimants against the Award dated 21.07.2001 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Muktsar (for short “Tribunal”), vide which MACT Case No.17 of 17.07.1998, filed by the appellants/claimants under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act (for short Act) on account of death of Tehal Singh in a motor vehicle accident due to rash and AMANDEEP GOSAIN 2026.07.30 18:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment No.DLY-1322, was dismissed. 2. Case of the claimants is that Tehal Singh (since deceased) was employed as a Driver-cum-Naik in the Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF) and was posted in the office of IGP, RAF, CRPF, East Block-II, R.K. Puram, New Delhi. On 28.02.1997, at about 07:40 am, he was going from RAF Headquarter to hand over documents to the CGO complex at Lodhi Road, New Delhi, on his motorcycle after finishing his duties. However, in the meanwhile, the vehicle bearing registration No.DLY-1322 (for short offending vehicle) being driven by respondent No.1 in a rash and negligent manner and at a high speed came from opposite side and struck against his motorcycle, resulting in serious injuries to him. He was brought to All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS), New Delhi, where he succumbed to the injuries on 01.03.1997. It is submitted that the deceased was about 50-51 years of age and was earning Rs.4,201/- per month. A sum of Rs.10,00,000/- was claimed as compensation by the claimants, who are his wife, minor children, and aged parents. 3. Respondent No.1 failed to appear despite service and was proceeded ex parte before the Tribunal, whereas respondents No.2 and 3 filed their separate written statements. 4. Respondent No.2 in its written statement did not dispute the ownership of the taxi car but denied that any such accident had taken place with the said vehicle. It was, however, contended that the offending vehicle was comprehensively insured with respondent No.3. 5. Respondent No.3/Insurance Company in its written statement refuted AMANDEEP GOSAIN 2026.07.30 18:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment on account of any accident with Taxi No.DLY-1322 and that respondent No.1 was not holding a valid and effective driving licence at the time of the alleged occurrence, and thus dismissal of the claim petition was sought. 6. From the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by learned Tribunal:- “1. Whether on 28.02.97 death of Tehal Singh son of Bishan Singh had been caused by respondent No.1 through his rash and negligent driving of Taxi bearing registration number DLY 1322 as alleged? OPP 2. Whether the claimants are entitled to the grant of compensation, if so, to what amount and against whom? OPP 3. Whether the respondent No.1 was not holding a valid driving license at the time of the alleged occurrence? OPR3 4. Relief.” 7. Thereafter, the parties led their evidence and after hearing the parties and going through the record, learned Tribunal decided Issue No. 1 against the claimants on the ground that no eye-witness of the occurrence has been examined. The Tribunal relied upon the certified copy of the judgment Ex. PW1/16, according to which the driver (respondent No. 1) had been acquitted by the court in FIR No. 110 of 1997 because the sole eye-witness (Vijay Kumar) had turned hostile and had not supported the prosecution. Ultimately, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the claimants have failed to prove that the accident was caused by respondent No. 1, while driving the offending vehicle rashly and negligently. AMANDEEP GOSAIN 2026.07.30 18:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment (Assistant Administrative Officer of respondent No. 2), who deposed that respondent No. 1 was holding a valid and effective driving license at the time of the occurrence, and decided the issue against the Insurance Company. Moreover, the petition was dismissed in view of finding on issue No.1. 8. Feeling aggrieved, the appeal in hand has been preferred. The material on file has been perused and parties have been heard. 9. Learned counsel for the appellants argued that the impugned Award is based on conjecture and surmises. The pleadings of the parties and evidence on file have not been appreciated in the correct perspective, while coming to the conclusion that the claimants have failed to prove that the accident in question had taken place on account of rash and negligent driving on the part of respondent No.1. Learned counsel next contended that the FIR in question was lodged by one Vijay Kumar and on the basis of investigation conducted by the police, respondent No.1 was challaned for the offences under Sections 279 and 304-A IPC and he had faced the trial. However, said Vijay Kumar turned hostile and did not support the prosecution case before the Court where respondent No.1 was facing the trial, as a result of which, he was acquitted. Learned counsel next contended that the Tribunal decided issue No.1 against the claimants on the ground that they have not examined the eye-witness and since respondent No.1 has already been acquitted of the charge in the criminal case, claimants have failed to prove rash and negligent driving on his part. Learned counsel next contended that proceedings before the Tribunal are independent of criminal proceedings and standard of proof required is different. In a criminal case, the guilt has to be proved beyond reasonable doubt, AMANDEEP GOSAIN 2026.07.30 18:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment decided on the touchstone of preponderance of probability and the proceedings before the Tribunal are summary in nature which are guided by principles of justice and good conscience. Learned counsel next contended that the rough site- plan of the place of occurrence which is part of the report under Section 173 Cr.P.C clearly shows that offending car had hit the motorcycle after going towards the wrong side, whereas, the motorcycle was being driven on its due left side and from this circumstance alone, rash and negligent driving on the part of respondent No.1 is proved. Learned counsel next contended that the owner has examined PW1-Anil Bhardwaj, who has admitted that respondent No.1 was employed as a driver on the offending car on the date of accident and his services were dispensed with on the very next day and the identity of the driver is thus also not in dispute and learned counsel prayed that the finding on issue No.1 be reversed and adequate compensation be awarded to the claimants. 10. On the other hand, learned counsel for Insurance Company argued that Award in question is well reasoned and justified and same does not call for any interference. Learned counsel next contended that in a petition under Section 166 of the Act, the claimants are required to establish that the accident in question had taken place due to rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle which is sine qua non for establishing the case and since claimants had failed to examine any eye-witness of the accident, it cannot be assumed that the accident in question had taken place on account of rash and negligent driving on the part of respondent No.1 and learned counsel contended that no interference in the finding on issue No.1 is called for. AMANDEEP GOSAIN 2026.07.30 18:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment 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. Besides this, Hon’ble Supreme Court in 2018 ACJ 1300, Mangla Ram Vs. Oriental Insurance Company Limited has held 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 AMANDEEP GOSAIN 2026.07.30 18:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment 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 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. 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 9, ICIC 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 the reasonable doubt. It was held by AMANDEEP GOSAIN 2026.07.30 18:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment relying on such documents to conclude that the driver of the offending vehicle was rash and negligent. The appellant’s contention that the respondent connived with the police to prepare a fraudulent charge sheet was rejected due to lack of evidence. 12. In the present case, respondent No.1 had been challaned by the police for the offences under Sections 279 and 304-A IPC, after completion of investigation and he faced the trial. The FIR was registered on the basis of statement of Vijay Kumar who had turned hostile and did not support the prosecution case during the trial against the driver and as such, he has denied having witnessed the accident. However, the report under Section 173 Cr.P.C is a part of the record and the rough site-plan of the place of accident prepared by the Investigating Officer is also a part of the final report and its perusal shows that motorcycle of the deceased was going from West to East on Harsukh Marg and the offending vehicle was coming from the opposite direction. The accident is shown to have taken place at point A and if the same is believed, the motorcycle was being driven on its due left side and car had hit the motorcycle after going towards the wrong side of the road and the principle of res ipsa loquitur will thus be applicable i.e. the facts speak for themselves. On the other hand, respondents have not dared to examine the driver in support of their case to establish that accident had not taken place due to rash and negligent driving on the part of respondent No.1. It is well settled that if a party does not step into the witness-box to state his case on oath or to 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 circumstance, there was no reason for the Tribunal to discard the AMANDEEP GOSAIN 2026.07.30 18:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment prove that accident in question had taken place due to rash and negligent driving on the part of respondent No.1. It is also pertinent to mention that respondents have examined RW1-Anil Bhardwaj, who has admitted that respondent No.1 was employed as a driver on the offending car in February 1997 and he was removed from the service by respondent No.2 on 01.03.1997 i.e. on the next day of accident and as such, it is not in dispute that respondent No.1 was driving the car on the date of accident. However, Learned Tribunal thus committed a grave error in dismissing the claim petition solely on the ground of acquittal of respondent No.1 in the criminal case (FIR No.110 of 1997). It is a settled principle of law that the proceedings before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal are independent of criminal proceedings and the standard of proof required is different. In a criminal case, the guilt has to be proved beyond reasonable doubt, whereas in a claim petition before the MACT, the issue of negligence is to be decided on the touchstone of preponderance of probability, as acquittal of respondent No.1 in the criminal case was not on merits but was a result of the benefit of doubt, as the sole eye-witness (Vijay Kumar) had been won over and declared hostile by the prosecution. This acquittal on technical grounds or due to witness turning hostile cannot be a ground to deny compensation to the dependents of the deceased in summary proceedings before the Tribunal, which are guided by principles of justice, and good conscience. Accordingly, finding on issue No.1 is not sustainable and is accordingly reversed and the same is decided in favour of the claimants. 13. The service record and testimony of PW2 Head Constable Gopal Singh establishes that Tehal Singh was on active duty on 28.02.1997, when he met AMANDEEP GOSAIN 2026.07.30 18:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment accident. Hence, it is established that the deceased died as a result of the injuries suffered in the roadside accident caused by the offending vehicle. 14. PW2 has deposed that date of birth of the deceased was 20.10.1946, as per service record produced by him and he was paid salary of Rs.4,261/- for the month of March 1997, vide salary certificate Ex. P1. Since the deceased was a permanent government employee and was aged about 50 years, 04 months and 11 days, 15% amount has to be added to his monthly income 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 monthly income to Rs.4,900/- (Rs.4,261/- + Rs.639/-). 15. The deceased has left behind six dependents (wife, two daughters, one minor son, and parents). Therefore, 1/4th of the income has to be deducted towards personal and living expenses of the deceased 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 loss of dependency comes out to Rs.3,675/- per month (Rs.4,900/- − Rs.1,225/-) and the annual loss of dependency comes to Rs.44,100/- (Rs.3,675/- × 12). 16. Deceased was 50 years, 04 months and 11 days old on the date of his death and as such, he had not completed the age of 51 years. As per Sarla Verma’s case (supra), multiplier of 13 is applicable in the case of death of persons between the age of 46-50 and multiplier of 11 is applicable in the case of death of persons aged 51-55 years and since deceased was below 51 years of age, multiplier of 13 will be applicable and after applying the same, the total loss of AMANDEEP GOSAIN 2026.07.30 18:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment judgment of the Gauhati High Court, Law Finder # 2946906 Oriental Insurance Company Limited Vs. Jaynab Nessa. 17. As per law laid down in Pranay Sethi’s case (supra), a sum of Rs.70,000/- is payable towards conventional heads i.e. Rs.40,000/- towards loss of consortium, Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate and Rs.15,000/- on account of funeral expenses. However, the judgment in Pranay Sethi’s case (supra) was passed in the year 2017 and taking into consideration the price index prevalent in the year 1997 when the accident took place, claimant No.1 is held entitled to a sum of Rs.30,000/- towards loss of consortium, Rs.10,000/- towards funeral expenses and Rs.10,000/- for loss of estate. Likewise, claimants No.2 to 6 are also held entitled to a sum of Rs.30,000/- each towards parental and filial consortium, which takes the total compensation to Rs.7,73,300/-. 18. Resultantly, the compensation to be awarded to the claimants is assessed as under: Sr. No. Heads Calculations 1. Age of deceased 50 years, 04 months and 11 days 2. Monthly income of deceased Rs.4,261/- per month 3. Future prospects @ 15% Rs.639/- 4. Total monthly income Rs.4,900/- 5. Number of dependents 6 6. Deduction towards personal expenses (1/4th) Rs.1,225/- 7. Monthly loss of dependency Rs.3,675/- AMANDEEP GOSAIN 2026.07.30 18:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment 19. Under Issue No. 3, it was held that the driver possessed a valid and effective driving license. The driving licence of respondent No.1 has been tendered in evidence as Ex. PW1/3, which shows that same was issued by Licensing Authority, Sheikh Sarai, New Delhi, authorizing him to drive light motor vehicle (commercial) and it was valid from 13.02.1996 to 12.02.1999. Besides this, the permit of the vehicle is also on the file, which shows that it is an All India Tourist Permit valid from 11.02.1997 to 30.01.1998 issued by Transport Authority, Delhi. No evidence has been led by the Insurance Company to establish 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 respondents No.1 to 3 shall be joint and several. 20. Resultantly, the appeal in hand is partly accepted with costs and the claimants/appellants are held entitled to a sum of Rs.7,73,000/- as compensation along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition i.e., 17.07.1998 till realization payable by respondents No.1 to 3 jointly and severally. Out of the compensation amount, a sum of Rs. 50,000/- each along AMANDEEP GOSAIN 2026.07.30 18:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment No. 2 to 6), while the balance amount be paid to claimant No. 1 (wife) along with proportionate interest. It has been pointed out by learned counsel for claimants that parents of the deceased have already died and if it is so, the amount of the compensation of their shares shall be disbursed to remaining claimants. 21. Registry is directed to email an authenticated copy of the award to the respondent Insurance Company in terms of the 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 the Insurance Company shall comply with the directions accordingly. 22. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. (YASHVIR SINGH RATHOR) 30.07.2026 JUDGE amandeep Whether speaking/reasoned. : Yes/No Whether Reportable. : Yes/No AMANDEEP GOSAIN 2026.07.30 18:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment