FAO-3242-200 IN TH (243) Ashok Kumar Jai Parkash A CORAM :HO Present: AMARINDER 1. challenging th Accident Claim Tribunal”), wh in a motor ve bearing registr 2. traveling from HR-15-C-0059 Respondent N vehicle and cr 2005 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJA CHANDIGARH umar Versus And others HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMAR Mr. Ashwani Arora, Advocate, w Mr. Vipul Sharma, advocate, for the appellant. Mr. Lalit Garg, Advocate, for respondent No.3-Insurance C *** NDER SINGH GREWAL, J. The present appeal has been prefe ing the award dated 08.04.2005, p t Claims Tribunal, Panchkula (hereina l”), whereby the claim petition filed on tor vehicular accident dated 24.04.2 registration No. HR-51-C-0059, was d Briefly stated, case of the petition from Saharanpur to Kalka in a Maru 0059, he met with an accident ent No. 1, while driving at an exces and crashed into a bridge railing. Th UNJAB AND HARYANA AT GARH FAO-3242-2005 Reserved on : 21.04.2026 Pronounced on: 28.04.2026 Uploaded on: 01.05.2026 ...Appellant ... Respondents MARINDER SINGH GREWAL cate, with nce Company. n preferred by the claimant-appellant , passed by the learned Motor ereinafter referred to as “the learned filed on account of injuries sustained 4.04.2002, involving a Maruti car was dismissed. etitioner is that on 24.04.2002, while a Maruti car bearing registration No. cident near Village Billa where excessive speed, lost control of the ng. The impact resulted in multiple llant otor rned ined i car hile No. here f the ltiple SHUBHAM 2026.05.01 16:26 I am the author of this document FAO-3242-200 grievous injur impairment on claim was con of collusion a Tribunal was o incident, the t AM, which subsequently i The learned between the ap found the clai Further it was fault" stance i Hence, the lea appellant was costs of ₹530/ 3. award dated Tribunal, Panc as the same evidence avai Tribunal had e appellant (PW had occurred Parkash, and i 2005 -2- injuries to the appellant, culminatin on his left arm, as deposed by as contested by the Respondent-Insura sion and fabrication. While evaluati l was observed that in DDR No. 11, r , the time of the accident was unequ hich stood in stark contradiction ently introduced during the trial to ju rned Tribunal notices that there is the appellant and Respondent No. 1 e claim to be a result of collusion ra it was noted that the driver’s testim ance in the police record to an adm the learned Tribunal dismissed the cla t was held not entitled to any compen ₹530/-. Learned counsel for the appellant ated 08.04.2005 passed by the lear l, Panchkula was wholly illegal, perve same had been rendered in comple e available on record. Further, it wa l had erroneously ignored the cogent a t (PW-2), who had specifically depo urred due to rash and negligent dr , and instead had wrongly relied upon ting in 20% permanent physical d by PW-1 Dr. Umesh Modi. The Insurance Company on the grounds valuating the evidence, the learned , recorded immediately after the unequivocally mentioned as 04:00 iction to the 01:00 AM version al to justify a theory of negligence. re is a close familial relationship . 1 (maternal uncle and nephew), sion rather than genuine negligence. testimony who shifted from a "no- n admission of negligence in court. claim petition. Consequently, the ompensation and was burdened with pellant contended that the impugned e learned Motor Accident Claims , perverse and liable to be set aside, omplete disregard of the material it was submitted that the learned gent and consistent testimony of the deposed on oath that the accident ent driving of respondent No.1-Jai d upon a self-serving DDR recorded sical The unds rned r the 4:00 rsion ence. ship ew), ence. - . , the with gned aims side, terial rned f the ident Jai rded SHUBHAM 2026.05.01 16:26 I am the author of this document FAO-3242-200 on the statem made the basi No.1; it was f appreciate Issu just compens unsustainable. the time of the had incurred treatment. The S. Gupta, esta extent of 20% injuries and pr considerable p Reliance in th State Electric 11.10.2022 (20 Supreme Cour provisions eve upon Vijay Ku 2004 decided proper appreci 4. Company con illegality or pe well as docum 2005 -3- statement of the said respondent himse e basis to discard the claim, thereby was further contended that the learn te Issues No. 2 and 3, which were cr mpensation, thereby rendering the nable. It was further submitted that th of the accident, had sustained grievou urred medical expenses to the tun t. The medical evidence, as proved th a, establishes that the appellant suffer f 20%. It was also brought on record and prolonged treatment, the appellan able period, thereby suffering both ph in this regard was placed upon Ram ectricity Board, Civil Appeal No 2 (2022 (4) TAC 738 (SC): 2023 A e Court had recognized entitlement to ns even in cases where negligence w y Kumar Goyal v. Pankaj Kumar a ided on 13.08.2024 , to contend th ppreciation of evidence and not on con Per contra, learned counsel fo y contended that the impugned awa y or perversity and has been passed af documentary evidence. It was submitte himself, which could not have been ereby vitiating the findings on Issue learned Tribunal failed to properly ere crucial for the determination of g the impugned award legally that the appellant, aged 46 years at rievous injuries to his right arm and he tune of ₹50,000/- towards his ved through the testimony of Dr. M. suffered permanent disability to the record that, on account of the said ppellant remained out of work for a oth physical and financial hardship. Ram Murti and others v. Punjab No.7143 of 2022 decided on 23 ACJ 631), wherein the Hon’ble ent to compensation under beneficial nce was not strictly proved, as also ar and another, FAO No.4708 of end that findings must be based on on conjectures and surmises. for respondent No.3–Insurance d award does not suffer from any sed after due appreciation of oral as bmitted that the appellant has failed been Issue perly n of gally rs at and his r. M. o the said for a ship. jab on n’ble ficial also of d on ance any al as ailed SHUBHAM 2026.05.01 16:26 I am the author of this document FAO-3242-200 to substantiate maintained th reasoned and d is prayed that t is placed upon Nahar Singh 9115 of 2014 Hon’ble Court of 1992,, to c interference w compensation 5. paper-book, th ISSUE NO 2005 -4- antiate the claim for enhancement by ed that the findings recorded by th and do not call for any interference b d that the appeal, being devoid of meri d upon the judgment of this Court in ngh and others, FAO No. 8848 of 014 (O&M), decided on 21.02.201 Court in Prital Singh v. Jaswant Sin to contend that in the absence of co nce with the findings of the learne sation cannot be granted. I have heard learned counsel fo ok, the following issues arise for dete A) Whether the learned Tribunal claim petition by holding the a collusion between the appe No.1? B) Whether the findings of the misappreciation of evidence, discrepancy in timing of the ac the driver, thereby negatin driving? C) Whether, notwithstanding fai of the Motor Vehicles Act, the compensation, and if so, to wh D) Whether Respondent No.3– liable to indemnify the insured E) Relief. E NO. A AND B:- nt by leading reliable evidence. It is by the learned Tribunal are well- rence by this Court. Consequently, it f merit, deserves dismissal. Reliance urt in Paramjit Kaur and others v. 8 of 2014 (O&M) with FAO No. 2.2017 , and the judgment of this t Singh and others, FAO No.1771 e of cogent and reliable evidence, no learned Tribunal is warranted and sel for the parties and perused the r determination: ibunal erred in dismissing the g the accident to be a result of appellant and Respondent of the Tribunal suffer from dence, particularly regarding the accident and testimony of egating rash and negligent ng failure under Section 166 ct, the appellant is entitled to , to what amount? –Insurance Company is nsured and satisfy the award? It is - ly, it iance s v. No. this 71 e, no and the SHUBHAM 2026.05.01 16:26 I am the author of this document FAO-3242-200 6. that the le evidence w Motor Veh which go contempora (DDR), rec version. M with regard occurrence introduced testimony o initial vers during trial stating tha speeding tr drowsy due mutually d accident to other to his his testimo relationship and nephe indicative o claim with 2005 -5- Upon a comprehensive appraisal o the learned Tribunal undertook a d nce while adjudicating the claim un r Vehicles Act. The Tribunal noticed o to the root of the matter. Fir mporaneous FIR and reliance upon ), recorded after a delay, cast a shad on. More importantly, a fundamental regard to the timing of the accident rrence at 04:00 AM, whereas du duced a version placing the accident at ony of the driver suffers from inheren l version, no specific negligence wa g trial, the driver attempted to introdu g that he was trying to save the ding truck. Simultaneously, he admit sy due to lack of sleep at the time ally destructive stands on the one ent to an external factor (over-speed to his own drowsiness seriously unde stimony. This shifting stand, coupled ionship between the appellant and the nephew), was rightly viewed by th ative of an attempt to tailor the vers within the four corners of Section raisal of the record, it emerges k a detailed scrutiny of the im under Section 166 of the oticed material inconsistencies er. Firstly, the absence of a upon a Daily Diary Report a shadow on the prosecution mental contradiction surfaced cident—the DDR records the as during trial, the driver dent at 01:00 AM. Further, the nherent inconsistencies. In the ce was attributed. However, ntroduce an improved version the vehicle from an over- admitted that he was feeling time of the accident. These e one hand attributing the speeding truck), and on the y undermine the credibility of upled with the admitted close nd the driver (maternal uncle by the learned Tribunal as e version so as to bring the ection 166 of the Act. The SHUBHAM 2026.05.01 16:26 I am the author of this document FAO-3242-200 learned Tri put forth by discrepanci conclusion to discharg required un are based o interference ISSUE NO 7. findings of driving und there. How prove 'Faul justice bein While the ' remains im unimpeache suffering. T clinical rec admitted o necessitatin prescription further fort Officer, G 2005 -6- ed Tribunal, therefore, justifiably con orth by the claimant was not reliable. I epancies, this Court finds no perver lusion drawn by the learned Tribunal scharge the burden of proving rash a ired under Section 166 of the Act. Th ased on proper appreciation of evide ference. E NO.C While this Court finds no groun ngs of the learned Tribunal on the aspe ng under Section 166 of the Act, the m However, this Court is of the firm o e 'Fault' under Section 166 should no e being slammed shut upon a victim e the 'Fault' may be shrouded in doubt ins immutable. The medical evidence peached chain that reflects the claim ring. The testimony of Dr. M. S. Gupt cal records, unequivocally establishes tted on 24.04.2002 with a severe ssitating immediate surgical intervent ription slips Ex. P-8 and Ex. P-9 er fortified by Ex. P-1, proved by Dr. er, General Hospital, Sector-6, Pan ly concluded that the version able. In view of these material perversity or illegality in the bunal that the appellant failed rash and negligent driving as ct. The findings so recorded evidence and do not warrant ground to interfere with the e aspect of rash and negligent , the matter does not conclude firm opinion that a failure to uld not result in the door of victim of a motor accident. doubt, the 'Fact' of the injury idence forms a consistent and claimant’s enduring physical . Gupta (PW-3), supported by lishes that the appellant was severe comminuted fracture ervention, as corroborated by 9. This clinical reality is Dr. Umesh Modi (Medical , Panchkula. The Disability SHUBHAM 2026.05.01 16:26 I am the author of this document FAO-3242-200 Certificate physical im trauma, sup prescription testimony o discrepanci appellant w sector, run income of context, the to his detri undisputed. 7.1 falters und corners of negligent u prove, from case fails corners of cases wher even if "ne this section "1 or ins mo 2005 -7- ficate confirms that the appellant has s ical impairment of the right upper l a, supported by a voluminous recor riptions from Ex. P-3 to Ex. P-86 ny of the flesh" which cannot be dil epancies or familial ties. Furthermore llant was a self-employed entreprene r, running a small-scale meat shop w e of approximately ₹5,000/-. In s xt, the absence of a income tax recor s detriment, especially when his stat sputed. Upon a view of the record, I fi rs under the 'Fault' test, it squarely f ers of Section 164 of the Act. But gent under the heads of section 166 from the record. I am of the firm fails the 'Fault test’, it squarely fi ers of Section 164. This section was s where the "factum of the accident" a if "negligence" is unproven or conte ection is produced herein:- "164. (1) Notwithstanding anythin or in any other law for the ti instrument having the force of l motor vehicle or the authorised in t has suffered 20% permanent pper limb. Such documented record of medical bills and 86, constitutes the "silent be diluted by minor temporal rmore, it is borne out that the repreneur in the unorganized shop with a modest monthly . In such a socio-economic x records cannot be construed is status as a victim remains d, I find that while the case arely fits within the statutory But in this case rash and n 166 of the Act, not able to firm opinion that while this rely fits within the statutory was specifically designed for ent" and "injury" are present, r contested. Bare language of ything contained in this Act e time being in force or of law, the owner of the ed insurer shall be liable to SHUBHAM 2026.05.01 16:26 I am the author of this document FAO-3242-200 pa ac co de hu (2 the tha cla ne ve 8. secondary. Th grievous hurt) monthly earnin record does no of PW-3 (the D sea of evident shrouded in th 'what' the phy documented o legislation, the to speak where vehicular imp Ram Murti v. 2091451, the under Section 2005 -8- pay in the case of death or grie accident arising out of the use compensation, of a sum of five l death or of two and a half lakh rup hurt to the legal heirs or the victim (2) In any claim for compensation the claimant shall not be require that the death or grievous hurt i claim has been made was due neglect or default of the owner o vehicle concerned or of any other Under the regime of Section 16 ry. The Parliament has fixed a "Liq hurt) specifically to avoid the prolo earnings for those in the unorganized oes not diminish the claimant's status (the Doctor) serves as an empirical an videntiary gaps. While the 'how' and d in the fog of contradictory timing he physical trauma and resulting dis nted on the very day of the purpo on, the Court must sometimes allow th where the record is silent, provided th r impact. The same was held by th ti v. Punjab State Electricity Board the Hon'ble Supreme Court dealt ection 166 was dismissed by both the grievous hurt due to any use of motor vehicle, a ive lakh rupees in case of h rupees in case of grievous ictim, as the case may be." ation under sub-section (1), uired to plead or establish urt in respect of which the due to any wrongful act, er of the vehicle or of the ther person. ion 164, the exact income becomes "Liquidated Sum" (₹2.5 Lakh for prolonged litigation of calculating anized sector. The lack of an income status as a "Victim." The testimony rical anchor in an otherwise turbulent ' and 'where' of the incident remain timings and close familial ties, the ing disability is an immutable fact purported event. In social welfare llow the physical scars of the victim ided the injuries are consistent with a by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in oard (2022), Law Finder Doc Id # dealt with a case where the claim th the Tribunal and the High Court. omes h for ating ome ony ulent main , the fact lfare ictim ith a rt in Id # laim ourt. SHUBHAM 2026.05.01 16:26 I am the author of this document FAO-3242-200 The Apex Cou Amendment: 9. Kumar (FAO similar dismis new law: A p 10. Supreme Court 2019. They rul sure the injure injuries in this paperwork or t 'Safety Net' law was at fault. Issue No. D 11. indemnify the 2005 -9- x Court used its power to modify thes ent: "8. We are inclined to give the a the beneficial provisions which Parliament. Hence, in modificat High Court, we direct that the ap to an amount of Rs 5 lakhs [for de Further held by this Court in FAO-4708/2004) decided on 13.0 dismissal under Section 166, clarified "11. ...the appellant-claimant is e compensation in view of Section Act, 1988, wherein, the claimant prove the rash and negligent dr The only requirement is the happ suffering of grievous hurt etc. du arising out of the use of motor veh Even though the learned Court b Court decided to change the outcom ey ruled that the helpful rules in Sect injured person gets fair treatment. T this case are more important tha rk or timing. Because the injury is re law that provides compensation w The liability of Respondent N fy the insured and satisfy the award no fy these orders by applying the 2019 the appellants the benefit of hich have been enacted by fication of the order of the e appellants shall be entitled r death] as compensation." t in Vijay Kumar Goyal v. Pankaj 13.08.2024, while dealing with a larified the core requirement of the t is entitled to receive ction 164 of the MV ant is not required to nt driving of anyone. happening of death or c. due to any accident r vehicle." ourt below dismissed the case, the outcome by using a new law from Section 164 must be used to make ent. Therefore, the proven physical nt than the small mistakes in the y is real, it automatically triggers a ation without needing to prove who dent No.3–Insurance Company to ard now falls for consideration. The 2019 kaj ith a f the , the from ake sical the ers a who y to . The SHUBHAM 2026.05.01 16:26 I am the author of this document FAO-3242-200 Insurance Com No. 1 did not accident. How Insurance Com contrary, respo on record his the present cas (Ex. R-2) on prove that (Ex the 'Burden of (An untouche judgment of 297 held as un disq driv hav for inva driv ava thir the to a or b fund of th 12. insured with R and subsisting 2005 -10- e Company contested the claim petitio id not possess a valid and effective dri . However, it is pertinent to note tha e Company led no evidence to su espondent No. 1 (Driver) stepped in d his original driving license, which w ent case, the Insurance Company mere ) on record but failed to summon a Ex. R-1) was either fake or invalid den of Proof' in cases of license disp touched matter). The Hon’ble Supr t of National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. as under: "(iii) The breach of po disqualification of driver or invalid driver, as contained in sub-section have to be proved to have been co for avoiding liability by the insurer invalid driving licence or disqualif driving at the relevant time, are no available to the insurer against ei third parties." (vi) Even where the insurer is a the part of the insured... the insure to avoid its liability towards insured or breaches on the condition of d fundamental as are found to have c of the accident." It is further not in dispute that th with Respondent No.3 at the relevant sisting, therefore, in view of the d petition on the plea that Respondent ive driving license at the time of the ote that despite taking this plea, the to substantiate the same. On the ped into the witness box and placed hich was exhibited as (Ex. R-1). In y merely placed the insurance policy mon any official from the RTO to invalid. The legal position regarding se disputes is no longer Res Integra Supreme Court in the landmark . vs. Swaran Singh (2004) 3 SCC policy condition e.g., valid driving licence of the tion (2)(a)(ii) of section 149, n committed by the insured urer. Mere absence, fake or ualification of the driver for e not in themselves defences st either the insured or the is able to prove breach on surer would not be allowed sured unless the said breach of driving licence is/are so ave contributed to the cause that the offending vehicle was duly levant time and the policy was valid the discussion, respondent No.3– dent f the , the the laced . In olicy O to rding gra mark CC duly valid – SHUBHAM 2026.05.01 16:26 I am the author of this document FAO-3242-200 Insurance Com insured, as no Relief 13. award passed the findings on is held entitled Act. 14. (Rupees Two annum from th 15. aforesaid amo from the date amount of com the appellant. 16. of. No order as April, 28, 202 Vibhakti/Shub 2005 -11- e Company is held liable to satisfy th as no breach of policy conditions has Resultantly, the present appeal is assed by the learned Tribunal is mod ings on the issue of negligence are aff entitled to compensation under Sectio The appellant–claimant shall be e Two Lakh Fifty Thousand only) alo rom the date of passing of this order ti Respondent No.3–Insurance Com d amount to the appellant–claimant w e date of receipt of a certified copy o of compensation shall directly be dep llant. All pending miscellaneous applic rder as to costs. (AMAR , 2026 hubham Whether speaking/reasoned Whether reportable tisfy the award by indemnifying the s has been established. eal is partly allowed. The impugned modified to the extent that, while are affirmed, the appellant–claimant Section 164 of the Motor Vehicles ll be entitled to a sum of ₹2,50,000/- along with interest @ 7.5% per rder till its final payment/realization. e Company is directed to pay the ant within a period of eight weeks opy of this judgment. The awarded be deposited in the bank account of applications, if any, stand disposed MARINDER SINGH GREWAL) JUDGE asoned : Yes/No : Yes/No g the gned hile mant icles - per tion. the eeks rded nt of osed SHUBHAM 2026.05.01 16:26 I am the author of this document