FAO-5695-2005 (O&M) - 1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 307 FAO-5695-2005 (O&M) Date of decision: 15.07.2026 SUKHWINDER KAUR AND ORS. ....Appellants Versus PREM CHAND AND ORS. ...Respondents 1. Judgment reserved on 13.07.2026 2. Judgment pronounced on 15.07.2026 3. Judgment uploaded on 15.07.2026 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. S.S. Swaich, Advocate, Ms. Deepa Negi, Advocate and Ms. Ishani Goyal, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. P.S. Saini, Advocate for respondent No.3-Insurance Company. YASHVIR SINGH RATHOR. J.(Oral) 1. The present appeal has been instituted by claimants against the Award dated 08.10.2005 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Fatehgarh Sahib (for short “Tribunal”), vide which MACT Case No.5-T of 29.01.2004, filed by the appellants/claimants on account of death of Sukhwinder Singh in a motor vehicle accident due to rash and negligent driving on the part of respondent No.1 while driving offending vehicle No.HR-38-H-4993, was dismissed. 2. Case of the claimants is that on 18.12.2003, Sukhwinder Singh, since AMANDEEP GOSAIN 2026.07.15 19:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment FAO-5695-2005 (O&M) - 2- deceased along with Chitranjan Singh was going to Mandi Gobindgarh from Dhandari Kalan after loading the scrap in truck No.PB-11-A-2463. When they reached Octroi Post near Mandi Gobindgarh on Khanna side, they parked their truck on left side on kacha portion of the road for payment of Octroi. At about 3:40 AM, when Sukhwinder Singh reached just in front of his truck, one mini truck bearing No.HR-38H-4993 (hereinafter referred to as offending vehicle) came from the side of Khanna, which was being driven rashly and negligently by respondent No.1-Prem Chand at a high speed and without blowing any horn and he struck the offending vehicle against the truck of Sukhwinder Singh. The right front wheel of the truck crushed the head of Sukhwinder Singh and he died on the spot. The driver of the offending vehicle tried to run away but was stopped but thereafter, respondent No.1 managed to escape. It is further submitted that accident in question took place solely due to rash and negligent driving on the part of respondent No.1 while driving the offending vehicle. Claimant No.1 is the wife, claimants No.2 to 5 are the children and claimants No.6 and 7 are the parents of the deceased. Sukhwinder Singh deceased was 28 years of age and used to earn Rs.8,000/- per month by working as a driver and as a dairy farmer. FIR No.221 dated 19.12.2003 was registered at Police Station Mandi Gobindgarh in respect of the present accident. It is further submitted that respondent No.1 being driver, respondent No.2 being owner and respondent No.3 being insurer of the offending vehicle are liable to pay compensation to the claimants on account of death of Sukhwinder Singh. 3. Respondents No.1 and 2 in their written statement have opposed the petition and have denied factum of accident. It has been denied that respondent AMANDEEP GOSAIN 2026.07.15 19:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment FAO-5695-2005 (O&M) - 3- No.1 was responsible for the death of Sukhwinder Singh on account of his rash and negligent driving. Material contents of the claim petition have been refuted to be wrong and dismissal of the same has been sought. 4. Respondent No.3-insurance company in its written statement has raised preliminary objections that the driver of the offending vehicle was not having a valid and effective driving license. It is further submitted that false case has been registered by the police or that Sukhwinder Singh died due to rash and negligent driving on the part of respondent No.1, while driving the offending vehicle. However, it has been admitted that the offending vehicle was insured with respondent No.3. Dismissal of the claim petition has been sought. 5. From the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by learned Tribunal:- “1. Whether Sukhwinder Singh deceased died on 19.12.2003 at about 3:40 A.M. in the area of Mandi Gobindgarh on account of rash and negligent driving by Prem Chand, respondent No.1 of vehicle No.HR-38-H-4993?OPP 2. Whether the claimants are entitled for compensation being the legal representatives of deceased Sukhwinder Singh. If so, how much and from whom? OPP 3. Whether respondent No.1 was not holding valid driving licence at the time of accident?OPR-3. 4. Relief.” 6. Thereafter, the parties led their evidence and after hearing the parties and going through the record file, learned Tribunal held that the claimants have failed to examine the author of the FIR and the Tribunal disbelieved the testimony of AW2 Gurdeep Singh on the ground that he had not been joined in the AMANDEEP GOSAIN 2026.07.15 19:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment FAO-5695-2005 (O&M) - 4- investigation by the police and his statement was never recorded. Ultimately, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the claimants have failed to prove that the accident in question was caused by respondent No.1 while driving the offending vehicle rashly and negligently and issue No.1 was decided against the claimants. Under issue No.2, it was held that claimants are not entitled to any compensation. Under issue No.3, it was held that the insured and driver have failed to produce the driving license of respondent No.1, despite directions, and an adverse inference was drawn against them and it was held that respondent No.1 did not possess a valid and effective driving license and issue No.3 was decided in favour of insurance company. However, the claim petition was dismissed in view of finding on issue No.1. 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.221 dated 19.12.2003, under Section 279/304-A IPC was got registered at Police Station Gobindgarh, District Fatehgarh Sahib Ex. A3 by Chittaranjan Singh, who was accompanying the deceased in the same truck. It has been alleged in the FIR that his mother Prem Lata owns truck No.PB-11A-2463 on which Sukhwinder Singh had been employed as a driver. Yesterday, i.e. on 18.12.2003, they loaded scrap from Dhandari Kalan and were going to Gobindgarh and today at about 3:40 AM when he along with the driver, Sukhwinder Singh reached Khanna side of octroi at Gobindgarh, they paid octroi and he asked driver to proceed further. Sukhwinder Singh driver by moving from front side of the said truck headed towards driver’s door and in the meanwhile, one Canter came from behind, which was being driven AMANDEEP GOSAIN 2026.07.15 19:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment FAO-5695-2005 (O&M) - 5- in a rash and negligent manner and hit their truck parked on the Kacha portion of the road and after hitting the truck, it moved ahead. Their truck also started moving ahead and hit driver Sukhwinder Singh, who fell on the ground and the right side tire of the truck ran over the head of Sukhwinder Singh. They noted down the registration number of the offending vehicle as HR-38H-4993. The driver of the said Canter stopped the same at some distance but thereafter, he ran away from the spot. 9. To prove their case, claimants have examined AW2 Gurdeep Singh, who deposed that Sukhwinder Singh had parked his truck on the left side of the road to pay Octroi and when he returned to his truck at about 3:40 AM, the offending vehicle bearing No. HR-38H-4993 came there from Khanna side, which was being driven by respondent No.1 at a high speed and in a rash and negligent manner. The offending vehicle struck against Sukhwinder Singh from behind, who fell down and front right wheel of the truck crushed the head of Sukhwinder Singh, resulting in his death. During cross examination, he stated that he is appearing before the tribunal for the first time and he had not disclosed about the accident to anyone else. He had also not accompanied Sukhwinder Singh to the hospital and had left the spot after sometime. He also stated that he never gave any statement before the police and he had not lodged the FIR. Learned Tribunal did not rely upon his testimony on the ground that he never got the FIR registered and his name also does not find mention in the FIR, as the person who was present at the spot and he was not examined by the police during the investigation. 10. However, the approach of the tribunal while discarding his testimony is highly erroneous. It is not in dispute that FIR in question was got registered by AMANDEEP GOSAIN 2026.07.15 19:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment FAO-5695-2005 (O&M) - 6- Chittaranjan Singh, who was accompanying the deceased in the same truck which was owned by his mother. The accident had taken place at 3:40 AM and the FIR Ex. A3 was registered at 5:10 AM and it shows that the FIR was promptly lodged and even registration number of the offending vehicle was mentioned in the FIR, which rules out the possibility of false implication or false involvement of the vehicle. Merely because he was not cited as a prosecution witness and was not examined by the police during investigation is no ground to discard his testimony. He has stated the material facts of the case on oath with regard to the manner of accident and nothing favourable could be extracted during his cross examination, so as to shatter his testimony. The tribunal while discarding his testimony has relied upon 1985ACJ 269 Haryana Milk Foods, Pehowa and Others Vs. Santokh Singh, 1986 ACJ 787 Kewal Krishan Sharma and Others Vs. Pepsu Road Transport Corporation and Another and 2001(2) The Punjab Law Reporter 832 Murti Devi and Others Vs. Suresh Kumar and Others. However, the same are not applicable to the facts of the case in hand, as in all these cases, the accident was caused by unknown vehicles which were hit and run cases and the persons who were examined had approached the police later on while trying to involve some vehicle by mentioning the registration number, whereas, it is not so in the present case. It is also not in dispute that the police had challaned respondent No.1 after conducting thorough investigation and he was prosecuted and has also been held guilty and convicted for the offences under sections 279 and 304A IPC by the Court of SDJM, Amlok, vide judgement dated 29.10.2011 in Police challan No.42 of 2004 titled State versus Prem Chand. It is well settled that if police after conducting investigation challans the driver for causing death due to rash and AMANDEEP GOSAIN 2026.07.15 19:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment FAO-5695-2005 (O&M) - 7- 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 negligently driven by its driver. Even if AMANDEEP GOSAIN 2026.07.15 19:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment FAO-5695-2005 (O&M) - 8- 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 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, the evidence led by the petitioners has gone unrebutted as respondent no.1 has not dared to step into the witness box and to offer himself for cross-examination or to state his case on oath. It is well settled that if a party does not step into the witness box and offer himself for cross- AMANDEEP GOSAIN 2026.07.15 19:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment FAO-5695-2005 (O&M) - 9- 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. 11. Copy of postmortem report of deceased Sukhwinder Singh has also been led in evidence as Ex. A4, which shows that he had suffered multiple injuries on his head and his face and scalp was badly crushed and as per opinion of the doctor, deceased died on account of head injuries suffered by him which were ante-mortem in nature having been suffered in a roadside accident. As such, it is further established that deceased died on account of injuries suffered by him in the accident in question. 12. However, the findings of the Tribunal and the reasons given by it are highly erroneous and based on conjectures and surmises and the Tribunal has not appreciated the facts of the case and evidence on file in the correct perspective while coming to the conclusion that claimants have failed to establish rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by respondent No.1. On the other hand, claimants have successfully proved the same by leading cogent and convincing evidence and the only irresistible conclusion that can be drawn from the evidence on file is that the accident in question had taken place on account of rash and negligent driving on the part of respondent No.1 while driving the offending vehicle. Finding on Issue No.1 is accordingly reversed and same is decided in favour of claimants. Issue No.2 13. As per version of claimants, deceased was employed as a driver of truck bearing No.PB-11A-2463. It is not a dispute that the accident took place AMANDEEP GOSAIN 2026.07.15 19:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment FAO-5695-2005 (O&M) - 10- when deceased was going to Mandi Gobindgarh to sell the scrap in the same truck. It is thus not in dispute that deceased was a driver. AW3, who is the wife of the deceased stated that her husband used to get salary of Rs.8000/- per month as driver and he also used to earn Rs.5000/- per month by selling milk from dairy farming business. During cross-examination, she stated that he used to give receipt to his employer after receiving salary and he also used to maintain his income from the dairy business but she has not brought the same. As such, the material evidence has been withheld regarding the salary and income from dairy business and the oral testimony of AW3 thus cannot be relied upon to come to the conclusion that deceased was earning Rs.13,000 per month. However, some amount of guess work has to be applied while assessing the monthly income. 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 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 AMANDEEP GOSAIN 2026.07.15 19:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment FAO-5695-2005 (O&M) - 11- was further held that in such cases where deceased is engaged in such type of profession, claimants can only lead oral evidence. 14. In the present case, the accident had taken place in the year 2003 and it can be assumed that the deceased who was a truck driver must be earning atleast Rs.5500/- per month. Accordingly, income of deceased is taken as Rs.5500/- per month. 15. As per postmortem report Exhibit A4, deceased was 35 years of age and as such, 40% amount has to be added to the monthly income of the deceased towards future prospects in view of law laid down in Pranay Sethi’s case (supra), which takes his income to Rs.7,700/- (Rs.5,500/- + Rs.2,200/-). 16. The petition in hand has been instituted by wife, four children, mother and father of the deceased. 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 are legal representatives under the Act entitling them to compensation. Accordingly, it is held that claimant No.7, who is the father, was also dependent upon his deceased son. Therefore, it is held that deceased has left behind seven dependents i.e. wife, four children, mother and father, and 1/5th of the income thus has to be deducted towards personal and living expenses as per law laid down in Sarla Verma’s case (supra). After deducting the same, the monthly loss of AMANDEEP GOSAIN 2026.07.15 19:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment FAO-5695-2005 (O&M) - 12- dependency comes out to Rs.6,160/- (Rs.7,700/- − Rs.1,540/-) and the annual loss of dependency comes out to Rs.73,920/- (Rs.6,160/- × 12). 17. Since deceased was 35 years of age, multiplier of 16 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.11,82,720/-. 18. In addition to this, claimant No.1 (wife of the deceased) is held entitled to a sum of Rs.70,000/- under 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, as per law laid down in Pranay Sethi’s case (supra). Likewise, claimants No.2 to 7 (four children, mother and father of the deceased) are also held entitled to a sum of Rs.40,000/- each on account of loss of parental and filial consortium, in view of law laid down in Nanu Ram’s case (supra) and Satinder Kaur’s case (supra), which takes the compensation to Rs.14,92,720/-. 19. Resultantly, the compensation to be awarded to the claimants is assessed as under:- Sr. No. Heads 1. Age of deceased 35 years 2. Monthly income of deceased Rs.5,500/- per month 3. Future prospects @ 40% Rs.2,200/- 4. Total monthly income Rs.7,700/- 5. Number of dependents 7 6. Deduction towards personal expenses of the deceased (1/5th) Rs.1,540/- 7. Monthly loss of dependency Rs.6,160/- 8. Annual loss of dependency Rs.73,920/- 9. Multiplier 16 10. Loss of dependency Rs.11,82,720/- 11. Compensation under conventional heads to claimant No.1 (wife) Rs.70,000/- AMANDEEP GOSAIN 2026.07.15 19:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment FAO-5695-2005 (O&M) - 13- 12. Compensation to claimants No.2 to 5 (four children) towards parental consortium Rs.1,60,000/- (Rs.40,000/- each) 13. Compensation to claimants No.6 and 7 (mother and father) towards filial consortium Rs.80,000/- (Rs.40,000/- each) 14. Total Compensation Rs.14,92,720/- (rounded off to Rs.14,93,000/-) 15. Interest 9% 20. Resultantly, the appeal in hand is partly accepted with costs and claimants/appellants are held entitled to a sum of Rs.14,93,000/- as compensation along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of claim petition i.e. 29.01.2004 till realization. Out of the compensation amount, a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- each along with proportionate interest be paid to claimants No.2 to 7 (four children, mother and father of the deceased) while balance amount be paid to claimant No.1 (wife) along with proportionate interest. 21. Under issue No.3, it has been held that driver did not possess a valid and effective driving licence and same was decided in favour of Insurance Company on account of breach of terms and conditions of the insurance policy by the insured/owner. However, insurance company is liable towards the third party i.e. claimants and it shall pay the compensation amount to the claimants but shall a have right to recover the same from the owner/insured alongwith interest @ 6% from the date of deposit till realization without filing a separate suit. 22. 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 AMANDEEP GOSAIN 2026.07.15 19:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment FAO-5695-2005 (O&M) - 14- under Clause (F) of the said judgment. 23. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. (YASHVIR SINGH RATHOR) 15.07.2026 JUDGE amandeep Whether speaking/reasoned. : Yes/No Whether Reportable. : Yes/No AMANDEEP GOSAIN 2026.07.15 19:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment