FAO-5194-2018 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO-5194-2018 (O&M) Sajna Devi and another ....Appellants Vs. Om Parkash and others ....Respondents Reserved on : 15.01.2026 Date of Pronouncement: 18.02.2026 Uploaded on : 20.02.2026 Whether only the operative part of the judgment is pronounced?NO Whether full judgment is pronounced? YES CORAM : HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA Present : Mr. Rao Ajender Singh, Advocate, for the appellants. Mr. Ajay Singla, Advocate, for respondent No.2-Insurance Company. ***** SUDEEPTI SHARMA, J. 1. The present appeal has been preferred for setting aside the award dated 16.02.2017 passed in the claim petition filed under Section 163- A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Rewari (for short, ‘the Tribunal’), whereby, claim petition filed by the appellants/claimants on account of death of goats and sheep, was dismissed. FACTS NOT IN DISPUTE 2. Brief facts of the case are that on the intervening night of 15/16.08.2016, Shri Niwas (since deceased), along with Pawan Kumar son VIRENDRA SINGH ADHIKARI 2026.02.20 19:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-5194-2018 (O&M) -2- of Raghbir, Dharmender son of Hansraj and another person, was coming towards Rewari in a Tata 407 bearing registration No. RJ-18GA-0042, which was loaded with goats and sheep. The vehicle was being driven by Pawan Kumar in a rash and negligent manner. The occupants of the vehicle requested him to drive at a moderate speed, but he did not pay heed to their request. At about 12:00 midnight, when they reached near village Majra, the driver Pawan Kumar caused accident with a Rajasthan Roadways bus bearing registration No. RJ-07-PA-6270, which was coming from the opposite side and was being driven by respondent No.3–Raj Kumar. As a result of the accident, Pawan Kumar, driver of the Tata 407, and another unknown person sitting in the vehicle died at the spot. Shri Niwas also sustained fatal injuries and was taken to General Hospital, Rewari, where he was declared brought dead. The accident was witnessed by Dharmender, who also suffered injuries in the occurrence. In the said accident, about 55– 56 goats and sheep also died due to the injuries sustained. The said goats and sheep belonged to Shri Niwas, who also lost his life in the accident. 3. Upon notice of the claim petition, the respondents appeared and filed their separate replies denying the factum of accident/compensation. 4. From the pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal framed the following issues:- “1. Whether deceased Shri Niwas son of Jai Ram died in a motor vehicle accident occurred on the night of 15/16.08.2014 due to rash and negligent driving of Rajasthan Roadways Bus No. RJ07 PA 6270 by driver VIRENDRA SINGH ADHIKARI 2026.02.20 19:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-5194-2018 (O&M) -3- respondent no. 3 and TATA no. RJ18 GA 0042 driven by Pawan son of Raghubir Singh resident of Village Gaud Tehsil Narnaul? OPP 1A Whether Raj Kumar suffered injuries in an accident that took place on the night of 15/16.8.2014 due to rash and negligent driving of Rajasthan Roadways Bus no. RJ07PA 6270 by driver respondent no.3 and Tata no. RJ18GA-0042 driven by Pawan son of Raghbir Singh resident of village Gaud Tehsil Narnaual?OPP 2. Whether the petitioners suffered damage due to death of 30 sheep and goats loaded in Tata no. RJ18 GA 0042 on account of accident that took place on the night of 15/16.08.2014 due to rash and negligent driving of Rajasthan Roadways Bus No. RJ07 PA 6270 by driver respondent no. 3 and TATA no. RJ18 GA 0042 driven by Pawan son of Raghubir Singh resident of Village Gaud Tehsil Narnaul? OPP 3. Whether the petitioners are entitled to get compensation, if so to what amount and from whom?OPP 4. Whether the drivers of TATA no. RJ18 GA 0042 and Rajasthan Roadways Bus No. RJ07 PA 6270 were not holding valid and effective driving licenses on the date of alleged accident, if so its effect? OPR 5. Relief ” 5. After taking into consideration the pleadings and the evidence on record, the learned Tribunal dismissed the claim petition. Hence, the present appeal. VIRENDRA SINGH ADHIKARI 2026.02.20 19:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-5194-2018 (O&M) -4- SUBMISSIONS OF LEARNED COUNSELS FOR THE PARTIES 6. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants submits that the learned Tribunal has erred in dismissing the claim solely on the premise that the appellants/claimants failed to establish that late Shri Niwas was the owner of the goats and sheep which died in the accident in question. Further that appellants/claimants failed to submit bills of goats and sheep. Further that the finding is founded on misappreciation of the evidence on record. Accordingly, it is prayed that the present appeal be allowed and appropriate compensation be awarded to the appellants/claimants. 7. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent-Insurance Company submits that learned Tribunal has rightly dismissed the claim of the appellants/claimants. He, therefore, prays that the present appeal be dismissed. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the whole record of this case. 9. It would be apposite to reproduce relevant portion of the award. The same is reproduced as under:- “ISSUE NO. 2 22. The onus to prove this issue has been placed upon the petitioners. However apart from the oral statement made by petitioner, there is no cogent or convincing evidence on record to show that the goats and sheep, who died in the accident, belonged to Shri Niwas deceased. The petitioner Sajna Devi could not tell as to from whom the goats and sheep were purchased by her husband. VIRENDRA SINGH ADHIKARI 2026.02.20 19:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-5194-2018 (O&M) -5- Even no evidence has been brought on record to show that her husband used to do the business of sale-purchase of goats and sheep. The petitioners have examined PW3Sanjeev son of Om Parkash resident of village Gurta Tehsil Buhana District Jhujhunu to show that deceased Shri Niwas used to purchase goats and Sheep from him. However, no receipt to that effect has been produced on record either by the petitioners or by PW3 Sanjeev Kumar. He stated that the age of goats and sheep were more than seven years. However the post mortem reports Ex. PB and Ex. PC mention the age of the cattle between six months to two years. It implies that PW3 is a procured witness. Even no such record has been produced by PW3 Sanjeev Kumar to show that he deals in salepurchase of goats and sheep. Although as per the post mortem reports Ex. PB and Ex. PC 12 sheep and 37 goats are shown to have died due to the injuries but the petitioners have failed to show that the deceased goats and sheep belonged to them or were purchased by the deceased. 23. Accordingly, it is held that the petitioners are not entitled to any compensation on account of death of goats and sheep in the accident as claimed by them in claim petition no. 8 of 2015. Therefore, findings on this issue recorded in favour of the respondents and against the petitioners.” 10. A perusal of the impugned award reveals that the learned Tribunal has fallen into error in declining compensation to the VIRENDRA SINGH ADHIKARI 2026.02.20 19:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-5194-2018 (O&M) -6- claimants/appellants on account of the death of goats and sheep in the accident. 11. From the material available on record, it is beyond dispute that, in the accident in question, livestock goats and sheep died. The post-mortem reports (Ex. PB and Ex. PC) specifically record that 12 sheep and 37 goats died due to injuries sustained in the occurrence. Thus, the factum of death of the animals in the accident stands conclusively established. 12. The claimant/appellant No.1, while stepping into the witness box, categorically deposed that the deceased goats and sheep belonged to her husband, late Shri Niwas. Her testimony finds corroboration from PW-3 Sanjeev, son of Om Parkash, resident of Village Gurta, Tehsil Buhana, District Jhunjhunu, who stated that the deceased used to purchase goats and sheep from him. Nothing substantial has been elicited in cross-examination to discredit the core of their testimonies. 13. The learned Tribunal, however, rejected the claim primarily on the ground that no documentary evidence or receipt had been produced to establish the sale and purchase of the livestock. Such an approach, in the considered view of this Court, is hyper-technical and contrary to the settled principles governing proceedings under the Motor Vehicles Act. 14. It is well established that claim proceedings before the Tribunal are summary in nature and strict rules of evidence are not to be applied with rigidity. The standard required is that of preponderance of probabilities and not proof beyond reasonable doubt. VIRENDRA SINGH ADHIKARI 2026.02.20 19:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-5194-2018 (O&M) -7- 15. In rural agrarian settings, transactions relating to sale and purchase of livestock are often conducted informally, without generation or preservation of documentary receipts. To insist upon formal documentary proof in such circumstances would amount to ignoring the ground realities of rural life and would defeat the beneficial object of the legislation, which is intended to provide just and fair compensation to victims of motor accidents. 16. In the present case, the oral evidence of the claimant and PW-3, coupled with the post-mortem reports evidencing the death of 49 animals in the accident, sufficiently establishes the ownership and loss on the touchstone of probabilities. The rejection of the claim on the sole premise of absence of receipts cannot, therefore, be sustained. 17. In view of the foregoing discussion and the material available on record, this Court is of the considered opinion that the claimants/appellants are entitled to compensation towards the loss of livestock. Accordingly, a lump sum compensation of Rs.8,00,000/- is awarded to the claimants/appellants under this head. 18. In view of the above, the present appeal is allowed. 19. So far as the interest part is concerned, as held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Dara Singh @ Dhara Banjara Vs. Shyam Singh Varma 2019 ACJ 3176 and R.Valli and Others VS. Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (2022) 5 Supreme Court Cases 107, the claimants/appellants VIRENDRA SINGH ADHIKARI 2026.02.20 19:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-5194-2018 (O&M) -8- are granted the interest @ 9% per annum on the enhanced amount from the date of filing of claim petition till the date of its realization. 20. The Insurance Company is directed to deposit the amount of compensation with the Tribunal within a period of two months from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment. The Tribunal is directed to disburse the amount of compensation along with interest in the account of the appellants. The appellants/claimants are directed to furnish their bank account details to the Tribunal. 21. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. (SUDEEPTI SHARMA) JUDGE 18.02.2026 Virender Whether speaking/non-speaking : Speaking Whether reportable : Yes/No VIRENDRA SINGH ADHIKARI 2026.02.20 19:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document