IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 271 FAO-3184-2003 (O&M) Decided on:20.07.2026 SURINDER KUMAR ...APPELLANT VERSUS PUNJAB STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD & ANR. ...RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PARMOD GOYAL Present: Mr. Anupam Singla, Advocate for appellant. Mr. Hunarveer Sharma, Advocate for respondent No.1. *** PARMOD GOYAL, J. (ORAL) Present appeal has been preferred against the award dated 07.05.2003 passed by Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Patiala (hereinafter referred to as ‘Tribunal’) by owner of truck (appellant) bearing registration No.HR-23-3351 (hereinafter referred to as ‘offending vehicle’) being aggrieved by grant of compensation of Rs.35,000/- to respondent-claimant on account of damages to 100 K.V.A. transformer owned by respondent-claimant due to rash and negligent driving of offending vehicle owned by appellant. 2. Respondent-claimant had filed claim petition seeking compensation of Rs.1,10,000/- on account of damages to 100 K.V.A. transformer situated at Model Town Mandi, Patran. It was claimed that on 13.10.2000 at about 06:30 p.m., respondent-driver while driving offending vehicle in rash and negligent manner had hit the offending vehicle against 100 K.V.A. transformer resulting into damage to SUNIL CHANDER 2026.07.22 15:58 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-3184-2003 (O&M) -2- transformer, electric poles, cables and disruption in power supply. 3. It is not in dispute that on the same day i.e. 13.10.2000, FIR No.370 was duly lodged against respondent No.2 for causing damage to the transformer by his rash and negligent driving . 4. Learned Tribunal after taking into consideration evidence of CW3-Balwant Singh, who was examined as an eye-witness to the accident and contents of FIR No.370 dated 13.10.2000 registered under Sections 279 and 427 of IPC, 1860 concluded that accident was result of rash and negligent driving of respondent-driver. While considering evidence of Balwant Singh-CW3 as well as contents of FIR, learned Tribunal had found evidence of RW1 i.e. respondent-driver to be unreliable and an afterthought. 5. In present case the entire case of respondent-claimant is dependent upon the testimony of CW3, who while appearing before the Tribunal had reiterated the manner of accident as was stated in FIR. CW3 clearly stated that on 13.10.2000 at about 06:00 p.m., when he was present in the area of Grain Market, Patran, a truck bearing registration No.HR-23-3351 loaded with husk driven by respondent-driver rashly and negligently struck against 100 K.V. transformer installed in Model Town Mandi, Patran. CW3 also stated that on account of hit by offending vehicle, electricity wire had broken and power failure took place and power supply could only be restored in the evening of 15.10.2000. Suresh Chand, Junior Engineer, who appeared as CW2 and J.R. Sharma, Assistat Executive Engineer, who appeared as CW4 had supported the testimony of CW3 and stated that accident had taken place on account of SUNIL CHANDER 2026.07.22 15:58 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-3184-2003 (O&M) -3- rash and negligent driving of respondent-driver and electricity supply remained disrupted till 15.10.2000. 6. It is worth noticing that the manner of accident had come in public domain on the same day i.e. on 13.10.2000 when the FIR No.370 was lodged and manner of occurrence stated in FIR No.370 dated 13.10.2000 is in line with the statement of CW3, whereas the version of respondent-driver had seen light for the first time only upon filing of written statement and appearance before the Court. 7. It is also worth noting that respondent-driver was booked under Section 279 and 427 of IPC, 1860 which shows that he was rash and negligent in driving his vehicle and had caused damage to the property owned by claimant. Both the Sections of IPC, 1860 under which FIR was lodged against respondent-driver in fact corroborates claim and evidence of CW3 regarding involvement of respondent-driver in the accident dated 13.10.2000. It is respondent-driver who had faced criminal prosecution in FIR No.370 without any protest or complaint. 8. Learned Tribunal had therefore rightly appreciated the evidence of CW3 and RW1-respondent-driver in light of standard of proof required for claim petition i.e. preponderance of probabilities. 9. Faced with above conclusion, learned counsel for appellant has tried to challenge the evidence of CW3 on the ground that CW3 had not disclosed as to which part of the truck had hit the transformer and no proof regarding damage to the truck was placed by claimant to show involvement of truck. However, I do not find any merit in the argument raised on behalf of appellant. In a claim petition, the standard of proof is SUNIL CHANDER 2026.07.22 15:58 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-3184-2003 (O&M) -4- preponderance of probabilities and is not necessary to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore, once CW3 had clearly asserted that accident was caused by respondent-driver by his rash and negligent driving then onus had shifted upon appellant to show that truck was not involved in the accident or the manner of occurrence as stated by eye- witness is false and is not reliable, however, nothing on record is available to conclude above facts. 10. In view of above discussion, present appeal is dismissed being without any merit. 11. Pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of. (PARMOD GOYAL) JUDGE 20.07.2026 Sunil Chander Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No SUNIL CHANDER 2026.07.22 15:58 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document