FAO-1231-2018 [245] Krishan Ku Mandeep K Coram : Present: PANKAJ J [1] aggrieved o Tribunal, S the Motor V [2] No.1, whe driving, wh Singh. [3] the spot. T Tribunal s negligent d [4] registered 2018 (O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF AT CHANDIGA FAO-1231 Date of De an Kumar versus deep Kaur HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PA Ms. Kamaldeep Kaur, Advoca for the appellant. Mr. Rupinder Singh Jhand, Ad **** KAJ JAIN, J. (ORAL) The owner-cum-driver of the ieved of Award dated 13.07.2017 pass nal, Sri Muktsar Sahib on a claim pe otor Vehicles Act. Challenge is to the findings re , whereby the appellant has been held ng, which led to a motor vehicular a The sole ground pleaded is tha . The claimant failed to examine nal should not have held the app gent driving. From the record, it is discernib tered qua the accident. The contents t T OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA DIGARH 1231-2018 (O&M) of Decision : 27.01.2026 …Appellant ….Respondent PANKAJ JAIN dvocate for Mr. G.S. Kaura, Advocate Advocate for the respondent. of the offending vehicle is in appea 7 passed by the Motor Accident Claim im petition filed under Section 166 o ings recorded by the Tribunal on Issu n held to be guilty of rash and neglige cular accident causing death of Balde is that the appellant was not present o amine any of the eye witnesses. Th e appellant responsible for rash an scernible that the FIR (Exhibit C-1) wa tents thereof were proved by examinin 1 vocate appeal, t Claims n 166 of n Issue egligent Baldev esent on The ash and 1) was amining RAJNEESH SHARMA 2026.01.30 16:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-1231-2018 CW-2/Gurt not in a po under Sect appellant. no more re FAO-7156 down by Su 2018 (O&M) 2/Gurtej Singh. He spelled out eye w n a position to dispute that, after in r Section 173 Cr.P.C., which led to llant. The appellant faced trial qua acc res integra. This Court had an 7156-2019 (O&M) & FAO-40-2025. by Supreme Court, this Court observe “11. The observations appear Supreme Court in the case of Du Cruz (2013) 10 SCC 646. Reiter Supreme Court in the case of Court in ICICI Lombard Gene Sahoo reported as 2025(2) SCC “xx xx xx 7. The core content Tribunal as also the Hi chargesheet prepared by the police. In short, the co High Court erred in rely the conclusion that the Udayanath Sahoo lost hi and negligent driving of t Though respondent Nos. affidavit, the learned co submit that there is absol documents consisting of F relation to the accident purpose of considering th vehicle accident case. T appellant despite attribut with the police, the appe short, it is submitted that same is liable to be dismis eye witness account. The appellant fter investigation, police filed a repo led to framing of charges against th accident in question. The issue n occasion to deal with the issue 2025. Relying on dictum of law la bserved as under:- pear to be in teeth of law laid down Dulcina Fernandes v. Joaquim Xavi eiterating the ratio of law laid down of Dulcina Fernandes ibid, Suprem General Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Raja SCC 599, observed as under:- tention of the appellant is that t High Court relied on the fraudule by the respondents in connivance wi he contention of the appellant is that t relying on the chargesheet to arrive the accident in question in whi st his life had occurred due to the ra of the truck insured with the appellan Nos.1 and 2 did not file any count d counsel appearing for them wou bsolutely no illegality in relying on su of FIR and the final report prepared ent in question by the police, for t g the question of negligence in a mot se. That apart, it is contended that t ributing connivance of the responden appellant failed to prove the same. that the appeal is devoid of merit and t ismissed. 2 ellant is a report inst the issue is issue in law laid wn by Xavier wn by preme Rajani at the dulent e with at the rive at which e rash ellant. ounter would n such red in or the motor at the ndents me. In nd the RAJNEESH SHARMA 2026.01.30 16:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-1231-2018 2018 (O&M) 8. As regards the re documents collected by th motor accident cases, this Oriental Insurance Co. Insurance Co. Ltd., (2018 335 : (2018) 2 SCC (Cri) No.27, thus : (SCC p.672) “27. Another rea Court to interfer Respondents 2 & Tribunal about the the subject jeep. Fa understanding of t to hold that Jeep N negligently by Res motorcycle of the This can be discer and the contents of naming Responden in Dulcina Fernan Xavier Cruz, (2013 73 : (2014) 1 SC negligence on the vehicle as set up b decided by the preponderance of standard of proof to observe that the adverted to by u Respondent 2 prim in driving the vehi even when the ac criminal case, this of no effect on the in respect of moto (Emphasis Supplied e reliability of charge sheet and oth by the police during the investigation , this Court in the case of Mangla Ram Co. Ltd. [Mangla Ram v. Orient 2018) 5 SCC 656 : (2018) 3 SCC (Ci Cri) 819 : 2018 INSC 311], held in pa 672) reason which weighed with the Hig erfere in the first appeal filed & 3, was absence of finding by t t the factum of negligence of the driver p. Factually, this view is untenable. O of the analysis done by the Tribunal ep No. RST 4701 was driven rashly an Respondent 2 when it collided with t the appellant leading to the acciden iscerned from the evidence of witnesse ts of the charge-sheet filed by the polic ndent 2. This Court in a recent decisio rnandes [Dulcina Fernandes v. Joaqui 2013) 10 SCC 646 : (2014) 1 SCC (Ci SCC (Cri) 13], noted that the key the part of the driver of the offendin up by the claimants was required to the Tribunal on the touchstone of probability and certainly not oof beyond reasonable doubt. Suffice t the exposition in the judgments alrea y us, filing of charge-sheet again rima facie points towards his complici vehicle negligently and rashly. Furthe e accused were to be acquitted in t this Court opined that the same may the assessment of the liability requir motor accident cases by the Tribunal plied) 3 other tion in Ram v. riental (Civ) n para High ed by by the iver of e. Our nal is ly and ith the cident. nesses police, cision aquim (Civ) key of ending to be ne of ot by ffice it lready gainst plicity urther, in the ay be quired unal”. RAJNEESH SHARMA 2026.01.30 16:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-1231-2018 2018 (O&M) 9. It is true that the T documentary evidence in such other documents pr with the accident in que note of the fact that based offending truck was trie negligent driving. The Hi and found no illegality Tribunal and consequentl 10. In the contextual s decision of this Court in [Mathew Alexander v. M 2023 INSC 621], this Cou “12….A holistic view of consideration by the Trib caused by a particular v not be established by the establish their case on t probabilities. The standar cannot be applied while compensation on account accident. To the same eff Court in Dulcina Fernand Fernandes v. Joaquim X (2014) 1 SCC (Civ) 73 : referred to the aforesaid j v. Himachal RTC, (2009) 189 : (2010) 1 SCC (Cri) 11. Thus, there can position that the questio essential for passing an claim should be consider before the Tribunal. If the the Tribunal, taking note o said that looking into he Tribunal had looked into the oral an e including the FIR, final report an s prepared by the police in connectio question. The Tribunal had also tak ased on the final report, the driver of t tried and found guilty for rash an e High Court took note of such aspec lity in the procedure adopted by t ently dismissed the appeal. ual situation it is relevant to refer to rt in Mathew Alexander v. Mohd. Sha v. Mohd. Shafi, (2023) 13 SCC 510 s Court held thus : (SCC p. 514, para 12 of the evidence has to be taken in Tribunal and strict proof of an accide ar vehicle in a particular manner n y the claimants. The claimants have on the touchstone of preponderance ndard of proof beyond reasonable dou while considering the petition seekin ount of death or injury in a road traff e effect is the observation made by th nandes v. Joaquim Xavier Cruz [Dulcin im Xavier Cruz (2013) 10 SCC 646 73 : (2014) 1 SCC (Cri) 13] which h said judgment in Bimla Devi [Bimla De 009) 13 SCC 530 : (2009) 5 SCC (Ci ri) 1101].” an be no dispute with respect to t estion regarding negligence which an award in a motor vehicle accide sidered based on the evidence availab f the police records are available befo ote of the purpose of the Act it cannot to such documents for the aforesa 4 al and rt and ection taken of the sh and spects by the r to a . Shafi 510 : a 12) n into cident r need ave to nce of doubt seeking traffic by this ulcina 646 : ch has a Devi (Civ) to the ich is cident ailable before not be resaid RAJNEESH SHARMA 2026.01.30 16:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-1231-2018 [5] well reason [6] be dismisse [7] disposed of 27.01.2026 ‘R. Sharma' 2018 (O&M) purpose is impermissible that the appellant had claimants connived with p chargesheet. The content the appellant was not accident had occurred so on the part of the decease reveal that pursuant t cognizance was taken fo resulted in the death of Ud 12. Applying the aforesaid p Court finds that Tribunal has r matter in hand taking into co record. Taking note of the polic permissible to return finding probabilities, the Tribunal has ri against the offending vehicle a same
deserves to be maintained In view thereof, this Court fin reasoned findings recorded by the Trib Finding no merits in the prese smissed. All pending miscellaneous ed off. .2026 Whether speaking/ reasoned Whether reportable sible or inadmissible. 12. It is also a fa had attributed that the responde ith police and fraudulently prepared t tention is that the vehicle insured wi not involved in the accident and t d solely due to the rash and negligen eased. But the evidence on record wou t to the filing of the final repo n for rash and negligent driving whi of Udayanath Sahoo.” id parameters to the present case, th as rightly taken a holistic view of t consideration the entire evidence o olice records available on record be ing on the basis of preponderance as rightly returned finding on issue No le and in favour of the claimants. T ained. ” urt finds no reason to interfere with th e Tribunal. present appeal. The same is ordered neous application(s), if any, stand (PANKAJ JAIN) JUDGE : Yes/No : Yes/No 5 a fact ondent ed the d with d the igence would report, which se, this of the ce on being nce of e No.1 s. The with the dered to stands RAJNEESH SHARMA 2026.01.30 16:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document