-1- 255 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO-4120-2004 Date of Decision: 22.07.2026 BINDU (SINCE DECEASED) THROUGH HER LRS AND ORS ...Appellants Versus BRIJ BHAN AND ORS ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PARMOD GOYAL Present: Mr. Ravinder S. Budhwar, Advocate for the appellants. Mr. Neeraj Khanna, Advocate (through VC) for respondent No.2-Insurance company. PARMOD GOYAL, J. (ORAL) Present appeal has been filed by the appellants-claimants who are wife and children of deceased Sh. Singhasan Singh (hereinafter referred to as the ‘deceased’), who died in motor vehicular accident dated 22.01.2003 caused due to rash and negligent driving by respondent-driver while driving three-wheeler bearing registration No.HR-67-1060, being aggrieved by the dismissal of claim petition filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, vide award dated 05.05.2004, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Panipat (hereinafter referred to as ‘Tribunal’) solely on the ground that respondents have failed to prove involvement of offending vehicle in accident dated 22.01.2003. 2. To prove the accident to be result of rash and negligent driving of three-wheeler (HR-67-1060), reliance was placed by appellants-claimants RAVINDER DHANIA 2026.07.24 15:02 I agree to specified portions of this document FAO-4120-2004 -2- on the evidence of Rajesh, who is one of the appellants-claimants and also the author of the FIR and upon PW-3-Anjan Kumar who claimed to be eye- witness of the accident. Appellants-claimants had also examined Additional Ahlmad from the Court of learned JMIC, Panipat to prove that it is respondent-driver who is facing trial arising out of FIR No.19 dated 22.01.2003 registered with Police Station, Samalkha, District Panipat under Section 279/304-A IPC and also to show that PW-3-Anjan Kumar was one of the witnesses cited in criminal case. 3. Learned Tribunal has considered the evidence led by appellants- claimants especially that of PW-1 and that of PW-3 and had concluded that since at the time of lodging of the FIR, the FIR was lodged against the unknown vehicle, therefore, subsequent disclosure of three-wheeler number goes to show that an attempt was made by appellants-claimants to falsely implicate three-wheeler to seek compensation in collision with respondent- driver. Learned Tribunal had also concluded that accident was a hit and run case which was being claimed to be case of negligence on the part of offending vehicle by the appellants-claimants. 4. On appreciation of evidence led by appellants-claimants, it is made out that accident had taken place on 22.01.2003 at about 7:30 AM in the morning. Admittedly, author of FIR No.19 i.e. Rajesh PW-1 was not present at the time of accident and had lodged the FIR on the same day within few hours of accident on the basis of information received by him from passersby at the place of occurrence. In the FIR, PW-1 author of FIR had clearly stated that initially he could not recognize his father who was victim of the accident, subsequently, he came to know about his father as dead body was not identifiable. It was after some time, he could identify his RAVINDER DHANIA 2026.07.24 15:02 I agree to specified portions of this document FAO-4120-2004 -3- father’s body. While appearing as PW-1, he has clearly stated that vehicle number was disclosed to him by none other than PW-3-Anjan Kumar and this fact was duly disclosed to the police at about 6:00 PM on 22.01.2003. PW-3-Anjan Kumar was also examined as one of witnesses wherein, he clearly stated to have seen the occurrence and having noted down the number of three wheeler at the time of accident. 5. Perusal of his cross-examination goes to show that his evidence has gone unrebutted. Merely because initially, FIR was lodged against an unknown vehicle, no conclusion can be drawn that the offending three- wheeler was falsely introduced later. Facts and circumstances of each case have to be appreciated individually and no straight jacket formula can be adopted. It must not be forgotten that the author of FIR in the present case had not witnessed the occurrence and had reached the spot only after the occurrence of accident and had got the information only from the passersby. On the basis of said information, he had duly made the statement upon which FIR was lodged. Therefore, the knowledge of PW-1-Rajesh Kumar as regards to accident at the most can be considered as hearsay and it was Anjan Kumar who claimed to have seen the occurrence and had disclosed the number of vehicle on the same day at about 6:00 PM on 22.01.2003. PW-3-Anjan Kumar was duly joined in investigation by the police and was duly cited as one of the witnesses as is made out from testimony of PW-2. Additional Ahlmad who had duly produced the records of the case and had placed the final report in FIR No.19 wherein respondent-driver had faced trial for causing the accident. 6. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, neither the presence of PW-3-Anjan Kumar nor conduct can be held to be RAVINDER DHANIA 2026.07.24 15:02 I agree to specified portions of this document FAO-4120-2004 -4- such as to discard or disown his evidence. His evidence is rather consistent and reliable and there is no rebuttal to the same either in the shape of evidence of respondent-driver or any other independent witness led by respondents. Even in cross-examination, the testimony of PW-3-Anjan Kumar had gone unscatched and unrebutted and therefore, learned Tribunal had not erred in not accepting the evidence of PW-3-Anjan Kumar and placing reliance upon mere statement of PW-1 that he was told that unknown vehicle had hit his father. The evidence of PW-1 is hearsay and evidence of PW-3-Anjan Kumar is that of an eye-witness and accordingly, learned Tribunal ought to have accepted the evidence of PW-3-Anjan Kumar, therefore, findings of learned Tribunal on issue No.1 is set aside. It is held that accident had taken place on account of rash and negligent driving of respondent No.1 while driving three-wheeler. 7. Appellants-claimants have sought compensation on account of loss of dependency by claiming that deceased was working with Ryan Limited and was earning Rs.5,500/- per month. However, except for oral assertions with regard to income and vocation of the deceased, no cogent and reliable evidence was led by the appellants-claimants. Neither employer was examined nor salary certificate was placed on record to show salary income of the deceased. No material in fact was placed on record as to conclude that deceased was working in a company and was earning Rs.5,500/- per month. Even vocational and educational qualification were not proved to justify his employment. However, deceased was aged 40 years as is made out from PMR (Ex.P3) and was an able-bodied person, therefore, must be earning some amount to support his family, accordingly, his income is taken equivalent to minimum wages payable to an unskilled worker i.e. RAVINDER DHANIA 2026.07.24 15:02 I agree to specified portions of this document FAO-4120-2004 -5- Rs.2,197/- prevalent in year 2003. Since deceased was aged 40 years at the time of accident, therefore, 40% towards future prospects needs to be taken for determining loss of dependency in view of National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors., 2017 (16) SCC 680. Similarly, multiplier of ‘15’ would be applicable in view of view of Sarla Verma Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation, 2009 (6) SCC 121. Since, deceased is survived by three dependents i.e. wife and two children, deduction of 1/3rd needs to be made towards personal expenses. 8. Appellants-claimants shall be entitled to compensation of Rs.40,000/- each for loss of spousal consortium and loss of parental consortium. Appellants-claimants shall also be entitled to compensation of Rs.15,000/- for funeral expenses and Rs.15,000/- for loss of estate. It is however made clear that in case Hon’ble Supreme Court answer the reference regarding quantum of compensation under conventional head made in Hasina Yasmin & Ors. Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd., 2025 SCC Online SC 2919 in favour of appellants, appellants shall be free to seek said amount by moving appropriate application in this regard. 9. Accordingly, compensation payable to appellants-claimants is as follows:- Income Rs.2,197/- per month (as per minimum wages) Rs.2,197/- per month Future prospects 40% (2197 + 879) Rs.3,076/- Deduction 1/3rd (3076 – 1025) Rs.2,051/- Multiplier 15 15 Loss of dependency Rs.2,051 x 15 x 12 Rs.3,69,180/- Funeral expenses Rs.15,000/- RAVINDER DHANIA 2026.07.24 15:02 I agree to specified portions of this document FAO-4120-2004 -6- Loss of estate Rs.15,000/- Spousal consortium payable to claimant No.1 Rs.40,000/- Parental consortium payable to claimant Nos.2 & 3 Rs.40,000/- x 2 Rs.80,000/- Compensation awarded in appeal Rs.5,19,180/- 10. Liability to pay compensation in the present case, shall be of respondents jointly and severally as issue No.4 was decided against respondent No.3 whereby learned Tribunal had found that respondent No.1 was holding valid licence Ex.P-2. Ex.P-2 shows that respondent No.1 was entitled to drive motorcycle, car and jeep. Car and jeep falls within definition of LMV and therefore, respondent No.1 was also entitled to drive three-wheeler which has unladen weight less than 7500 Kgs. Issue No.4 is upheld, compensation shall be paid by respondents jointly and severally. 11. Appellants/claimants shall be entitled to enhanced compensation amount along with 7.5% interest from the date of filing of claim petition till realization (except under the conventional heads i.e. loss of consortium, funeral expenses, loss of estate) under conventional heads interest shall be payable from August 2017 onwards till realization. Compensation shall be shared in the ratio of 50% by wife and 25% each by children. 12. Appeal is allowed in above terms. 13. Pending application(s), if any, is/are disposed of accordingly. (PARMOD GOYAL) 22.07.2026 JUDGE Ravinder Whether Speaking/Reasoned : Yes/No Whether Reportable : Yes/No RAVINDER DHANIA 2026.07.24 15:02 I agree to specified portions of this document