IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO-2775-2005 (O&M) Date of decision :02.09.2026 BACHAN KAUR ... APPELLANT VERSUS JARNAIL SINGH & ORS. ...RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PARMOD GOYAL Present: Mr. Balbir Kumar Saini, Advocate and Mr. Jaskamal Singh, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. D.S. Nain, Advocate and Mr. Satpal, Advocate for respondent No. 2. Mr. Vinod Gupta, Advocate for the respondent-Insurance Company. **** PARMOD GOYAL, J. (ORAL) IOIN-FAO-2775-2005 With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, application is allowed and main case is taken on Board today itself. Main Case 1. Present appeal has been preferred by appellant-claimant being aggrieved by award dated 01.04.2005 passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Patiala (hereinafter referred to as ‘Tribunal’), whereby claim petition preferred by claimant on account of injuries suffered by her son resulting in his death in motor vehicular accident dated 12.02.2001, allegedly caused by rash and negligent driving of respondent-driver while driving tanker bearing MANOJ KUMAR 2026.09.03 16:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-2775-2005 (O&M) -2- registration No. HR-37-7880 (hereinafter referred to as ‘offending vehicle’), was dismissed. 2. It is the case of appellant-claimant that on 12.02.2001 at about 7.00 p.m. deceased Mukhtiar Singh was coming to his village on his bicycle after finishing work with his employer Kashmir Singh in village Arian Majra. When he reached near village Channa Mour, respondent-driver, while driving tanker bearing registration No. HR-37-7880 in rash and negligent manner had struck against the bicycle of Mukhtiar Singh, resulting into multiple and grievous injuries. That on account of accident, deceased was admitted in Rajindera Hospital, Patiala from 12.02.2001 till 22.02.2001. FIR No. 47 dated 12.02.2001 was registered against respondent No. 1 on the statement of deceased-Mukhtiar Singh. It was further asserted that after the discharge, deceased remained under treatment from Rajindera Hospital and with private doctors. That he remained bed ridden as he could not pass urine and ultimately died on 19.11.2001 on account of injuries suffered by him in the accident. After the death of deceased, an application for addition of Section 304-A IPC was made to Senior Superintendent of Police, Patiala, on 17.01.2002. However, despite reminder dated 12.02.2002, police had not taken any action to add Section 304-A IPC in FIR. That due to illiteracy, dead body of deceased was not subjected to autopsy. The deceased was stated to be 60 years of age at the time of accident, earning Rs.2,500/- per month, while working as a labourer. It was further claimed that the deceased had spent Rs. 50,000/- on treatment. 3. Respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3 had not filed their written statement and were proceeded against ex parte after due service. Respondent No. 4 had denied the accident and its liability to pay compensation on the ground that MANOJ KUMAR 2026.09.03 16:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-2775-2005 (O&M) -3- respondent-owner had breached the terms and conditions of insurance policy. 4. From the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed: i. Whether Mukhtiar Singh son of Gurdial Singh died in a motor vehicle accident due to rash and negligent driving of tanker/truck No. HR-37-7880 on 12.2.2001 in the area of Police Station Julkan, district Patiala by respondent No. 1? OPP. ii. If issue No. 1 is proved, to what amount of compensation the claimant is entitled for and from which of the respondents? OPP. iii. Whether respondent No.1 was not holding a valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident? OPR-4. iv. Relief. 5. While deciding issue No. 1, learned Tribunal had indirectly admitted the involvement of offending vehicle in accident dated 12.02.2001. However, in view of the fact that claimant could not prove that deceased had died on account of injuries suffered in accident dated 12.02.2001, issue No. 1 was decided by learned Tribunal against the claimant, holding that the claimant had failed to establish that deceased had succumbed to injuries on 19.11.2001 received by him in motor vehicular accident that had taken place on 12.02.2001. On the basis of finding on issue No. 1, the claim petition was dismissed. 6. In order to prove accident, appellant-claimant had examined Kashmir Singh, who appeared as PW-3 and vide his affidavit Ex. P-14 had asserted that on 12.02.2001 at about 7.00 p.m, when the deceased was going to his village, Mehmoodpur Jattan, on his bicycle. and reached Channa Mour, in the meanwhile respondent-driver while driving offending vehicle came from Patiala side in rash and negligent manner and struck against the bicycle of MANOJ KUMAR 2026.09.03 16:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-2775-2005 (O&M) -4- deceased, resulting in multiple and grievous injuries to him. PW-3 claimed that thereafter he got the deceased admitted in Rajindera Hospital, Patiala. He also claimed that after discharge from Rajindera Hospital, deceased continued taking treatment from said hospital as well as from private doctors, however, he had succumbed to his injuries on 19.11.2001. 7. To counter the claim of claimant, Insurance Company had examined Nasib Chand as RW-1, who was appointed to conduct investigation by respondent-Insurance Company. As per RW-1, deceased had not died on account of injuries suffered in accident dated 12.02.2001. Rather, he had died on account of injuries suffered in subsequent accident, which had taken place in the month of October/November, 2001, while working with Karan Singh and having fallen from tractor trolley. He had duly placed his report Ex. R-1 on record. RW-2 Rakesh Mittal, Ahlmad, had proved proceedings being held in FIR No. 47 dated 13.02.2001 under Sections 279/337/338 IPC, registered at police Station Julkan titled as State Vs. Jarnail Singh, whereby he also proved that Section 304-A IPC was never added in the said trial and no postmortem report is available on record. 8. As far as accident is concerned, learned Tribunal has duly accepted that deceased had suffered injuries on 12.02.2001 and was discharged on 22.02.2001 in satisfactory condition, as there is no evidence on record which shows that the deceased continued his treatment after the discharge from the hospital. 9. Under issue No. 1, two facts were required to be decided by learned Tribunal: (i) whether accident dated 12.02.2001 was result of rash and negligent driving of offending vehicle driven by respondent-driver; and (ii) whether on MANOJ KUMAR 2026.09.03 16:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-2775-2005 (O&M) -5- account of injuries suffered in the accident dated 12.02.2001, deceased had died. However, learned Tribunal had erroneously decided issue No. 1 by deciding only second part of issue framed by it. 10. On appreciation of evidence, it is clearly made out that evidence of PW-3 is reliable, trustworthy and has gone unrebutted. Even Insurance Company is not disputing accident dated 12.02.2001. The claim of Insurance Company is that deceased had not died on account of injuries suffered by him in accident dated 12.02.2001. Even the investigator, i.e. RW-1, who was appointed by Insurance Company, had not stated that no accident had taken place on 12.02.2001 and deceased had not suffered injuries in the said accident. 11. The evidence of Investigator appointed by the Insurance Company, at the most, is an opinion and cannot be taken as substantive evidence. In case Insurance Company appoints an investigator, who collects some material evidence, which disproves the contentions raised by the claimant, it is the duty of Insurance Company to place the said material by leading primary evidence before the MACT for appreciation of learned Tribunal to conclude manner of accident on the basis of material so collected by investigator appointed by Insurance Company. Opinion of investigator, however, has no force and is not binding on the Tribunal. 12. In the present case, as far as accident dated 12.02.2001 is concerned, the same stands proved. It is also proved that accident had taken place on account of rash and negligent driving on the part of respondent-driver, while driving tanker No. HR-37-7880. Therefore, the finding on issue No. 1 needs to be modified. 13. It is also noteworthy that deceased had died on 19.11.2001 i.e. after MANOJ KUMAR 2026.09.03 16:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-2775-2005 (O&M) -6- 9 months of accident. He was discharged from hospital on 22.02.2001. Not a single document/medical record is available on record or proved which can show that the injuries suffered by deceased in accident dated 12.02.2001 were not treated and had resulted into death of deceased. The last medical record upon which learned counsel for the claimant has placed reliance is Mark ‘C’ dated 19.03.2001, which is also 8 months prior to date of death. It has no proximity with the death of deceased, who was aged 60 years. No postmortem report or exact nature of injuries by examining doctor has been proved to show that injuries suffered by deceased could have resulted in death. Claimant-appellant, therefore, has failed to prove death of deceased on account of injuries suffered by him in accident dated 12.02.2001. Therefore, the findings of learned Tribunal need to be modified on issue No. 1. Accordingly, it is held that deceased had suffered injuries in accident dated 12.02.2001, which was caused by respondent- driver by his rash and negligent driving, while driving offending vehicle. It is also held that, though, deceased had suffered injuries in accident but had not died on account of said injuries. 14. In view of the fact that deceased had suffered grievous injuries, as is made out from MLR Mark ‘B’, which shows that injury Nos. 1 and 6 were declared grievous, it is clearly made out that on account of accident, deceased had suffered grievous injuries. 15. Reliance has been placed by learned counsel for the claimant on Ex. P-6 to Ex. P-11, whereby claimant had spent some amount on medical treatment of injured/deceased. It is made out from Ex. P-6 to Ex. P-11, that claimant had spent around Rs. 2,500/- on the treatment of deceased. It is worth noticing that on account of treatment, claimant must have been spent some MANOJ KUMAR 2026.09.03 16:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-2775-2005 (O&M) -7- amount on transportation, special diet as well as on attendant. Accordingly, claimant shall be entitled to consolidated compensation of Rs. 15,000/- towards medical expenses, transportation, special diet and attendant charges, etc. In view of the fact that injury Nos. 1 and 6 were declared to be grievous injuries, it is clearly made out that deceased had suffered multiple grievous injuries and, therefore, he must have undergone immense pain and sufferings. Accordingly, claimant shall be entitled to compensation of Rs. 40,000/- towards pain and sufferings. 16. Keeping in view, nature of injuries, nature of treatment, period of hospitalization, deceased must have remained out of job for at least 6 months. Therefore, claimant shall be entitled to compensation for loss of income during the period of treatment. Accordingly, compensation of Rs. 15,000/- (Rs. 2,500/- x 6) is awarded towards loss of income by taking pleaded income of deceased as Rs. 2,500/- per month which is close to minimum wages. 17. Appellant-claimant shall be entitled to following compensation: Medical expenses, special diet, transportation and attendant charges Rs. 15,000/- Pain and sufferings Rs. 40,000/- Loss of income during treatment Rs. 15,000/- Total compensation awarded in appeal Rs. 70,000/- 18. Appellant-claimant shall also be entitled to interest over enhanced amount to the extent of 7.5% from the date of filing of claim petition till its realization. The liability of respondents to pay compensation shall be joint and several in view of finding of learned Tribunal on issue No. 3 against respondent- MANOJ KUMAR 2026.09.03 16:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-2775-2005 (O&M) -8- Insurance Company. 19. Appeal is allowed, accordingly. 20. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand(s) disposed of accordingly. 02.09.2026 (PARMOD GOYAL) manoj JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned Yes Whether reportable Yes/No MANOJ KUMAR 2026.09.03 16:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document