FAO-4821-2005 (O&M) and FAO-4821-2005 (O&M) and FAO-4821-2005 (O&M) and FAO-4821-2005 (O&M) and other connected case other connected case other connected case other connected case 1111 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH AT CHANDIGARH AT CHANDIGARH AT CHANDIGARH 210 210 210 210 FAO-4821-2005 (O&M) FAO-4821-2005 (O&M) FAO-4821-2005 (O&M) FAO-4821-2005 (O&M) Date of Decision: Date of Decision: Date of Decision: Date of Decision: September 02, 2026 Karan Singh Karan Singh Karan Singh Karan Singh ..... Appellant ..... Appellant ..... Appellant ..... Appellant Vs. Vs. Vs. Vs. Hukam Singh and others Hukam Singh and others Hukam Singh and others Hukam Singh and others ......Respondents ......Respondents ......Respondents ......Respondents 210-1 210-1 210-1 210-1 FAO-3564-2005 (O&M) FAO-3564-2005 (O&M) FAO-3564-2005 (O&M) FAO-3564-2005 (O&M) Hukam Singh Hukam Singh Hukam Singh Hukam Singh ..... Appellant ..... Appellant ..... Appellant ..... Appellant Vs. Vs. Vs. Vs. Jai Parkash @ Popa and others Jai Parkash @ Popa and others Jai Parkash @ Popa and others Jai Parkash @ Popa and others ......Respondents ......Respondents ......Respondents ......Respondents CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PARMOD GOYAL PARMOD GOYAL PARMOD GOYAL PARMOD GOYAL Present: Mr.Vikram Singh, Advocate Mr. Sukhdev Singh, Advocate and Ms. Devika Kamboj, Advocate for the appellant in FAO-4821-2005 and for respondent No.2 in FAO-3564-2005. Mr. Aswani Gaur, Advocate for respondent No.1 in FAO-4821-2005 and for the appellant in FAO-3564-2005. Mr. D.K. Dogra, Advocate and Mr. Vinod Gupta, Advocate for respondent No.3-Insurance Company. ---- PARMOD GOYAL PARMOD GOYAL PARMOD GOYAL PARMOD GOYAL J. (ORAL) J. (ORAL) J. (ORAL) J. (ORAL) Present appeals have been preferred by the claimant as well as owner being aggrieved by the impugned award dated 26.04.2005 passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Panipat (hereinafter referred to as SONIA ARORA 2026.09.03 15:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-4821-2005 (O&M) and FAO-4821-2005 (O&M) and FAO-4821-2005 (O&M) and FAO-4821-2005 (O&M) and other connected case other connected case other connected case other connected case 2222 the tribunal the tribunal the tribunal the tribunal). Vide impugned award, claim petition was allowed and appellant-claimant was awarded compensation of Rs.1,19,147/- on account of injuries suffered by him in motor vehicular accident dated 28.09.2003 allegedly caused due to rash and negligent driving by respondent-driver while driving Mohindra Jeep bearing registration No.HR-67-0763 (hereinafter referred to as offending vehicle). offending vehicle). offending vehicle). offending vehicle). 2. Appellant-claimant in FAO No.3564 of 2005 FAO No.3564 of 2005 FAO No.3564 of 2005 FAO No.3564 of 2005 has sought enhancement of compensation and on the other hand, appellant-owner in FAO No.4821 of 2005 FAO No.4821 of 2005 FAO No.4821 of 2005 FAO No.4821 of 2005 has challenged the award on Issue No. 1 as well as on Issue No.2 as regards to finding of rash and negligent driving as well as quantum of compensation. For the sake of brevity, facts have been taken from FAO No.3564 of 2005 FAO No.3564 of 2005 FAO No.3564 of 2005 FAO No.3564 of 2005, which is the appeal filed by the appellant- claimant. 3. The appellant-claimant had claimed that on 28.09.2003, at about 8:00 A.M., he had left his village Jatal on Motor Cycle bearing No. HR-06J- 0255 to meet his son-in-law. After meeting his son-in-law, he started back for his village at about 8:45 p.m., when he had hardly covered distance of one killa, offending vehicle driven by the respondent-driver rashly and negligently came from Gohana side and hit the motor-cycle of the appellant- claimant due to which he had suffered multiple and grievous injures. However, after causing accident, respondent-driver ran away from the spot and was later on identified. It was claimed that FIR No.153 dated 28.09.2003, under Sections 279/337/338 and 427 IPC, 1860 was got registered at Police Station Israna against the respondent-driver for rash and negligent driving by him. SONIA ARORA 2026.09.03 15:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-4821-2005 (O&M) and FAO-4821-2005 (O&M) and FAO-4821-2005 (O&M) and FAO-4821-2005 (O&M) and other connected case other connected case other connected case other connected case 3333 4. Appellant-claimant had further claimed that he had suffered immense loss on account of expenses incurred by him on his treatment, loss of earning capacity, loss of future amenities and accordingly had sought compensation to the tune of Rs.5 lacs alongwith interest @ 18% per annum. 5. Respondents No.1-driver and respondent No.2-owner vide their joint written statement had denied the case of the appellant-claimant by asserting that it was claimant, who was driving his motor cycle rashly and negligently at a very high speed and had struck against the offending vehicle. Respondents No.1-driver and respondent No.2-owner had claimed the accident to be the result of sole negligence on the part of the appellant- claimant, therefore, denied their liability and sought dismissal of claim petition. 6. Respondent No.3-Insurance Company had also denied its liability to pay the compensation as it was subsequently proved on record that the vehicle was not insured at the time of the accident. 7. From the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed:- 1. Whether the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of vehicle No.HR-67-0763 by respondent No. 1 ? OPP 2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to any compensation if so, how much, and from whom ? OPP 3. Whether the respondent no.1 was not holding a valid licence at the time of accident, as alleged ? OPR SONIA ARORA 2026.09.03 15:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-4821-2005 (O&M) and FAO-4821-2005 (O&M) and FAO-4821-2005 (O&M) and FAO-4821-2005 (O&M) and other connected case other connected case other connected case other connected case 4444 4. Whether the respondents No.1 and 2 violated the terms and conditions of insurance policy as alleged ? OPR 5. Relief 8. Learned Tribunal after considering respective contentions of the parties, had decided Issue No.1 in favour of the appellant-claimant and held that it was respondent-driver, who was rash and negligent and had caused accident dated 28.09.2003. 9. Following compensation was awarded to the appellant-claimant by the learned Tribunal :- Head Head Head Head Compensation Compensation Compensation Compensation Medical expenses Rs.59,147/- Transportation Rs.5,000/- Special diet and attendant charges Rs.5,000/- Pain and suffering Rs.30,000/- Future medical expenses Rs.15,000/- Total Compensation Rs.1,19,147/- 10. In order to prove rash and negligent driving, on the part of the respondent-driver, appellant-claimant/Hukam Singh himself had appeared as PW1 and had placed reliance upon FIR No.153 dated 28.09.2003 against respondent No.1 alongwith challan Ex.PW4/A and charge sheet Ex.PW4/B showing that it was respondent No.1-driver who was facing trial for causing the accident. 11. In order to rebut the evidence of PW-1 Hukam Singh, respondent-driver Jai Prakash @ Popa appeared as RW1 and had denied his SONIA ARORA 2026.09.03 15:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-4821-2005 (O&M) and FAO-4821-2005 (O&M) and FAO-4821-2005 (O&M) and FAO-4821-2005 (O&M) and other connected case other connected case other connected case other connected case 5555 rash and negligent driving and claimed that accident had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of appellant-claimant himself. 12. 12. The learned Tribunal after appreciating the evidence of PW-1 Hukam Singh and RW-1 Jai Parkash @ Popa had concluded that it was the evidence of PW-1, which was more reliable and had accepted the same by ignoring the evidence of RW-1 to conclude that accident had taken place on account of rash and negligent driving of respondent-driver. 13. From the pleadings of the parties as well as from the evidence, it is clearly made out that as far as occurrence/accident dated 28.09.2003 is concerned, it is being admitted by both the sides. It is only the manner of accident which is being disputed. On one hand the appellant-claimant is asserting that accident had taken place on account of rash and negligent driving of respondent-driver and on the other hand, appellant-owner is asserting that accident had resulted on account of rash and negligent driving of appellant-claimant. 14. On consideration, I find that learned Tribunal had rightly applied principle of corroboration to accept and ignore the evidence of PW1- Hukam Singh and RW-1-Jai Parkash respectively. Perusal of evidence of PW1 goes to show that the manner of occurrence so stated by PW1 duly finds corroboration from the contents of FIR No.153 dated 28.09.2003, which was lodged on the statement of none but the appellant-claimant immediately on the same day within few hours after the accident. The manner of occurrence as was stated at the time of lodging the FIR No.153 dated 28.09.2003 is same as was stated by PW1 before the Court. Further, claimant had succeeded in proving that in pursuance of lodging of FIR SONIA ARORA 2026.09.03 15:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-4821-2005 (O&M) and FAO-4821-2005 (O&M) and FAO-4821-2005 (O&M) and FAO-4821-2005 (O&M) and other connected case other connected case other connected case other connected case 6666 No.153 against the respondent-driver, the same was investigated by police and after investigation, the police had also found that it was respondent- driver, who was rash and negligent in causing the accident, accordingly final report under Section 173 (Ex.PW4/A) was filed against the respondent- driver and respondent-driver was duly charge-sheeted under Sections 279, 337, 338 (Ex.PW4/B) to face the trial. Therefore, the evidence of PW1 finds due corroboration in the shape of prompt lodging of FIR whereby manner of occurrence had come in public domain within a few hours of accident. 15. On the other hand, evidence of RW1-Jai Parkash @ Popa is without any corroboration as was noted by learned Tribunal. In fact no protest was ever made by respondent-driver as against his false implication in FIR No.153 dted 28.09.2003. Respondent-driver had kept quite after lodging of FIR, his arrest in FIR and on filing of final report as well as after he was charged for offences mentioned in challan. The manner of occurrence as being asserted by RW1-Jai Parkash @ Popa had come in public domain only by way of filing written statement. This appears to be an attempt by respondent-driver to avoid civil and criminal liability on account of accident dated 28.09.2003. 16. If the evidence of PW1 and RW1 is tested on the touchstone of standard of proof of preponderance of probabilities then it is the evidence of PW1, which is more reliable and therefore, had rightly been relied upon by the learned Tribunal. 17. I do not find any error in the approach of learned Tribunal and finding of negligence on the part of respondent-driver as recorded by learned Tribunal. Therefore, the finding on issue No.1 is accordingly, upheld. SONIA ARORA 2026.09.03 15:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-4821-2005 (O&M) and FAO-4821-2005 (O&M) and FAO-4821-2005 (O&M) and FAO-4821-2005 (O&M) and other connected case other connected case other connected case other connected case 7777 18. As far as compensation on various Heads i.e medical, transportation, special diet, attendant, pain and suffering as well as future medical expenses are concerned, no objection is being raised by learned counsel for the appellant-claimant as same is otherwise as per evidence led by appellant-claimant before the learned Tribunal. Admittedly, appellant- claimant had succeeded in proving that he had spent Rs.59,147/- on medical treatment, which has duly been granted by learned Tribunal. Despite the fact that no evidence was led to prove expenses incurred upon transportation, attendant and special diet, compensation of Rs.5000/- under each head was awarded by learned Tribunal. Similarly, compensation of Rs.30,000/- and Rs.15,000/- under the head pain and suffering and future medical expenses respectively, in absence of any specific material to show further expenses on treatment, cannot be held to be excessive or not just compensation. 19. The only grievance which has been raised by learned counsel for the appellant-claimant is as regards to non-grant of compensation for loss of earning capacity due to disability to the extent of 70%. In order to prove his disability, appellant-claimant had examined Dr. Ved Paraksh Gupta as PW3. PW3 had duly proved the disability certificate Ex. PW3/E, which was issued by Medical Board. Perusal of disability certificate Ex. PW3/E goes to show that claimant had suffered 70% disability. However, PW3 had further clarified that the disability suffered to the extent of 70% was temporary in nature. Similarly Dr. Ravinder Garg, who was examined as PW2 and had treated the appellant-claimant had stated that injury is curable and possibility of complete recovery cannot be ruled out. SONIA ARORA 2026.09.03 15:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-4821-2005 (O&M) and FAO-4821-2005 (O&M) and FAO-4821-2005 (O&M) and FAO-4821-2005 (O&M) and other connected case other connected case other connected case other connected case 8888 20. Therefore, the learned Tribunal had rightly concluded that appellant-claimant had failed to prove any permanent disability, however, since no time frame was given in which the said temporary disability would be cured, the appellant-claimant would have suffered loss of earning capacity and loss of future amenities of life as well as future prospects, till the time the temporary disability was cured. In these circumstances, a lumpsum amount of Rs.1,00,000/- Rs.1,00,000/- Rs.1,00,000/- Rs.1,00,000/- is awarded for loss of earning as well as loss of earning as well as loss of earning as well as loss of earning as well as loss of future prospects and amenities, loss of future prospects and amenities, loss of future prospects and amenities, loss of future prospects and amenities, on account of temporary disability suffered by the appellant-claimant. Appellant-claimant shall be entitled to compensation of Rs.2,19,147/- Rs.2,19,147/- Rs.2,19,147/- Rs.2,19,147/-, which shall be payable after deducting amount already paid vide the award by learned Tribunal by respondent- owner and respondent-driver, jointly and severely. 21. In view of above discussion, appeal preferred by appellant- owner bearing FAO No.4821-2005 FAO No.4821-2005 FAO No.4821-2005 FAO No.4821-2005 is dismissed dismissed dismissed dismissed and appeal filed by the appellant-claimant bearing FAO No.3564 of 2005 FAO No.3564 of 2005 FAO No.3564 of 2005 FAO No.3564 of 2005 is allowed allowed allowed allowed. 22. Pending application(s), if any, also stand(s) disposed of. 23. A photocopy of this order be placed on the file(s) of other connected case(s). ((((PARMOD GOYAL PARMOD GOYAL PARMOD GOYAL PARMOD GOYAL)))) JUDGE JUDGE JUDGE JUDGE September 02, 2026 sonia arora Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes / No Whether reportable: Yes / No SONIA ARORA 2026.09.03 15:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document