FAO-659-2024 (O&M) 159 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA Hargopal and Another Tejinder Singh Malhi and Others CORAM : HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA Present: Mr. Sahil Mehra, Advocate for Mr. Nipun Vashist, Advocate for the appellants. Mr. Paul S. Saini, Advocate for respondent No.3 Service of respondents No.1 and 2 dispensed with Vide order dated 22.07.2025. NIDHI GUPTA, J. 1. Present of compensation of Rs.8,66,000/ Tribunal, Ludhiana (hereinafter referred to as “the learned Tribunal”) vide Award dated 18.08.2023 passed in MACT Clai Motor Vehicles Act, (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) . The the 42-year-old father and 40 who was about 21 years old at the time of accident. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the Tribunal upon appraisal of the of pleadings and oral and documentary evidence adduced by the parties had concluded that deceased Simranpreet Kaur had died due to the injuries suffered by her in a motor vehicular ac 2024 (O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH -.- FAO Date of Decision : 21.05.2026 Hargopal and Another VERSUS Tejinder Singh Malhi and Others CORAM : HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA Mr. Sahil Mehra, Advocate for Mr. Nipun Vashist, Advocate for the appellants. Mr. Paul S. Saini, Advocate for respondent No.3-Insurance Company. Service of respondents No.1 and 2 dispensed with Vide order dated 22.07.2025. -.- NIDHI GUPTA, J. Present appeal has been filed by the claimants seeking enhancement of compensation of Rs.8,66,000/- awarded by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ludhiana (hereinafter referred to as “the learned Tribunal”) vide Award dated 18.08.2023 passed in MACT Claim Petition No.269 of 2021 filed under the Motor Vehicles Act, (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) . The old father and 40-year-old mother of the deceased Simranpreet Kaur, who was about 21 years old at the time of accident. Brief facts of the case are that the Tribunal upon appraisal of the of pleadings and oral and documentary evidence adduced by the parties had concluded that deceased Simranpreet Kaur had died due to the injuries suffered by her in a motor vehicular accident that took place on 23.11.2021 due to rash and -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO-659-2024 (O&M) Date of Decision : 21.05.2026 ....Appellants ....Respondents CORAM : HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA Mr. Nipun Vashist, Advocate for the appellants. Insurance Company. Service of respondents No.1 and 2 dispensed with appeal has been filed by the claimants seeking enhancement awarded by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ludhiana (hereinafter referred to as “the learned Tribunal”) vide Award m Petition No.269 of 2021 filed under the Motor Vehicles Act, (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) . The two claimants are old mother of the deceased Simranpreet Kaur, who was about 21 years old at the time of accident. Brief facts of the case are that the Tribunal upon appraisal of the of pleadings and oral and documentary evidence adduced by the parties had concluded that deceased Simranpreet Kaur had died due to the injuries suffered by cident that took place on 23.11.2021 due to rash and appeal has been filed by the claimants seeking enhancement awarded by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ludhiana (hereinafter referred to as “the learned Tribunal”) vide Award m Petition No.269 of 2021 filed under the claimants are old mother of the deceased Simranpreet Kaur, Brief facts of the case are that the Tribunal upon appraisal of the of pleadings and oral and documentary evidence adduced by the parties had concluded that deceased Simranpreet Kaur had died due to the injuries suffered by cident that took place on 23.11.2021 due to rash and TRIPTI SAINI 2026.05.26 09:08 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-659-2024 (O&M) negligence driving of a Car bearing registration No. HR ‘the offending vehicle’) being driven by respondent No.1, owned by respondent No.2 and insured by responding No.3. The abov along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum. The compensation was to be paid jointly and severely. 3. Ld. counsel for the appellants seeks enhancement of compensation by submitting that nothing has been awarded to the Moreover, the deceased was doing Masters; and after completion of MCA was about to join a multinational company. As such, compensation of have been awarded to the appellants. 4. Per contra vehemently opposes submissions advanced on behalf of the appellants and submits that more than just and fair compensation has been awarded by the ld. Tribunal. It is further pointed out that the deceased had been negligence to the extent of 50%. However, no challenge thereto has been made by the appellants in the present Grounds of Appeal. It is accordingly, submitted that the compensation being just and fair, no ground is made out for the present appeal deserves to be dismissed. 5. No other argument is raised on behalf of ld. counsel for the appellants. 6. I have heard learned counsel and perused the case file in detail. I find no merit in the submissions advanced o 7. A perusal of the record shows that the ld. Tribunal has held the deceased liable for the contributory negligence to the extent of 50% as, at the time of the accident, the deceased was jaywalking i.e. she was crossing the point where there was no zebra crossing. As a result of which the accident had 2024 (O&M) negligence driving of a Car bearing registration No. HR ‘the offending vehicle’) being driven by respondent No.1, owned by respondent No.2 and insured by responding No.3. The abov along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum. The compensation was to be paid jointly and severely. Ld. counsel for the appellants seeks enhancement of compensation by submitting that nothing has been awarded to the Moreover, the deceased was doing Masters; and after completion of MCA was about to join a multinational company. As such, compensation of have been awarded to the appellants. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.3 vehemently opposes submissions advanced on behalf of the appellants and submits that more than just and fair compensation has been awarded by the ld. Tribunal. It is further pointed out that the deceased had been negligence to the extent of 50%. However, no challenge thereto has been made by the appellants in the present Grounds of Appeal. It is accordingly, submitted that the compensation being just and fair, no ground is made out for the present appeal deserves to be dismissed. No other argument is raised on behalf of ld. counsel for the appellants. I have heard learned counsel and perused the case file in detail. I find no merit in the submissions advanced on behalf of the appellants. A perusal of the record shows that the ld. Tribunal has held the deceased liable for the contributory negligence to the extent of 50% as, at the time of the accident, the deceased was jaywalking i.e. she was crossing the point where there was no zebra crossing. As a result of which the accident had -2- negligence driving of a Car bearing registration No. HR-07-Y-0751 (hereinafter ‘the offending vehicle’) being driven by respondent No.1, owned by respondent No.2 and insured by responding No.3. The above compensation has been awarded along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum. The compensation was to be paid Ld. counsel for the appellants seeks enhancement of compensation by submitting that nothing has been awarded to the appellants towards loss of estate. Moreover, the deceased was doing Masters; and after completion of MCA was about to join a multinational company. As such, compensation of ₹1 crore ought to nsel for respondent No.3-Insurance Company vehemently opposes submissions advanced on behalf of the appellants and submits that more than just and fair compensation has been awarded by the ld. Tribunal. It is further pointed out that the deceased had been held liable for contributory negligence to the extent of 50%. However, no challenge thereto has been made by the appellants in the present Grounds of Appeal. It is accordingly, submitted that the compensation being just and fair, no ground is made out for enhancement, and No other argument is raised on behalf of ld. counsel for the appellants. I have heard learned counsel and perused the case file in detail. I find n behalf of the appellants. A perusal of the record shows that the ld. Tribunal has held the deceased liable for the contributory negligence to the extent of 50% as, at the time of the accident, the deceased was jaywalking i.e. she was crossing the road at a point where there was no zebra crossing. As a result of which the accident had 0751 (hereinafter ‘the offending vehicle’) being driven by respondent No.1, owned by respondent e compensation has been awarded along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum. The compensation was to be paid Ld. counsel for the appellants seeks enhancement of compensation by appellants towards loss of estate. Moreover, the deceased was doing Masters; and after completion of MCA was ₹1 crore ought to Insurance Company vehemently opposes submissions advanced on behalf of the appellants and submits that more than just and fair compensation has been awarded by the ld. Tribunal. It held liable for contributory negligence to the extent of 50%. However, no challenge thereto has been made by the appellants in the present Grounds of Appeal. It is accordingly, submitted that enhancement, and No other argument is raised on behalf of ld. counsel for the appellants. I have heard learned counsel and perused the case file in detail. I find A perusal of the record shows that the ld. Tribunal has held the deceased liable for the contributory negligence to the extent of 50% as, at the time road at a point where there was no zebra crossing. As a result of which the accident had TRIPTI SAINI 2026.05.26 09:08 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-659-2024 (O&M) taken place. Finding of the ld. Tribunal in this regard is in Para 7.2 of the Award, relevant extract of which is as follows: “……… extreme right side of the road near the divider and this lane is meant for maximum speeding vehicles. The point 'A' where accident occurred is not a place for crossing road and no zebra crossing has been shown at this point as per site deceased was required to be more cautious while crossing the road. However, keeping in view the general conduct of people in Bharat while crossing the roads, the offending car was also required to be vigilant in driving, mores easily seen deceased Simranpreet Kaur standing near the divider of the road and trying to cross the road, respondent no.1 was required to slow down the car on seeing that someone standing near the divider was trying precautions while crossing the road and at the same time offending car being driven by respondent no.1 was at high speed in a rash and negligent manner and it hit the deceased who received injuri later on succumbed to the same. Keeping in view the above, it is held that both deceased and respondent no.1 were equally negligent in 50:50. In the case of Lilawati causing the accident i.e. in the ratio of 50:50 8. Perusal of the Grounds of Ap appellants have laid no challenge to the aforesaid finding of the ld. Tribunal. Accordingly, the said finding is maintained. 9. As regards quantum of compensation, the record reveals that it was pleaded case of the appellants that deceased was doing Masters in Computer Application. It was also alleged that deceased was earning taking tuition classes up to cla further deposed that after qualifying, deceased would have joined multinational 2024 (O&M) taken place. Finding of the ld. Tribunal in this regard is in Para 7.2 of the Award, relevant extract of which is as follows: - “……… The accident has occurred in the l extreme right side of the road near the divider and this lane is meant for maximum speeding vehicles. The point 'A' where accident occurred is not a place for crossing road and no zebra crossing has been shown at this point as per site deceased was required to be more cautious while crossing the road. However, keeping in view the general conduct of people in Bharat while crossing the roads, the offending car was also required to be vigilant in driving, moreso, when the driver of the car could have easily seen deceased Simranpreet Kaur standing near the divider of the road and trying to cross the road, respondent no.1 was required to slow down the car on seeing that someone standing near the divider was trying to cross the road. Therefore, the deceased did not take due precautions while crossing the road and at the same time offending car being driven by respondent no.1 was at high speed in a rash and negligent manner and it hit the deceased who received injuri later on succumbed to the same. Keeping in view the above, it is held that both deceased and respondent no.1 were equally negligent in 50:50. In the case of Lilawati causing the accident i.e. in the ratio of 50:50.” Perusal of the Grounds of Appeal of the present case show that appellants have laid no challenge to the aforesaid finding of the ld. Tribunal. Accordingly, the said finding is maintained. As regards quantum of compensation, the record reveals that it was pleaded case of the appellants that deceased was doing Masters in Computer Application. It was also alleged that deceased was earning taking tuition classes up to class 12. Claimant No.1 while appearing as PW1 had further deposed that after qualifying, deceased would have joined multinational -3- taken place. Finding of the ld. Tribunal in this regard is in Para 7.2 of the Award, The accident has occurred in the land which is on the extreme right side of the road near the divider and this lane is meant for maximum speeding vehicles. The point 'A' where accident occurred is not a place for crossing road and no zebra crossing has been shown at this point as per site place Ex.R-1. Therefore, the deceased was required to be more cautious while crossing the road. However, keeping in view the general conduct of people in Bharat while crossing the roads, the offending car was also required to be o, when the driver of the car could have easily seen deceased Simranpreet Kaur standing near the divider of the road and trying to cross the road, respondent no.1 was required to slow down the car on seeing that someone standing near the divider to cross the road. Therefore, the deceased did not take due precautions while crossing the road and at the same time offending car being driven by respondent no.1 was at high speed in a rash and negligent manner and it hit the deceased who received injuries and later on succumbed to the same. Keeping in view the above, it is held that both deceased and respondent no.1 were equally negligent in 50:50. In the case of Lilawati causing the accident i.e. in the ratio of peal of the present case show that appellants have laid no challenge to the aforesaid finding of the ld. Tribunal. As regards quantum of compensation, the record reveals that it was pleaded case of the appellants that deceased was doing Masters in Computer Application. It was also alleged that deceased was earning ₹50,000/- per month by ss 12. Claimant No.1 while appearing as PW1 had further deposed that after qualifying, deceased would have joined multinational taken place. Finding of the ld. Tribunal in this regard is in Para 7.2 of the Award, and which is on the extreme right side of the road near the divider and this lane is meant for maximum speeding vehicles. The point 'A' where accident occurred is not a place for crossing road and no zebra crossing has 1. Therefore, the deceased was required to be more cautious while crossing the road. However, keeping in view the general conduct of people in Bharat while crossing the roads, the offending car was also required to be o, when the driver of the car could have easily seen deceased Simranpreet Kaur standing near the divider of the road and trying to cross the road, respondent no.1 was required to slow down the car on seeing that someone standing near the divider to cross the road. Therefore, the deceased did not take due precautions while crossing the road and at the same time offending car being driven by respondent no.1 was at high speed in a rash and es and later on succumbed to the same. Keeping in view the above, it is held that both deceased and respondent no.1 were equally negligent in 50:50. In the case of Lilawati causing the accident i.e. in the ratio of peal of the present case show that appellants have laid no challenge to the aforesaid finding of the ld. Tribunal. As regards quantum of compensation, the record reveals that it was pleaded case of the appellants that deceased was doing Masters in Computer per month by ss 12. Claimant No.1 while appearing as PW1 had further deposed that after qualifying, deceased would have joined multinational TRIPTI SAINI 2026.05.26 09:08 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-659-2024 (O&M) companies in which she would have been offered package of more than per month. However, they said averments/claims of of hypothetic. Nonetheless, it cannot be ignored that the claimants had produced documentary evidence Ex.P4 to Ex.P18 pertaining to the educational qualifications of the deceased; the most pertinent being Ex.P16, which is c Bachelor of Computer Applications of the deceased. Keeping in view the aforesaid facts, however, also taking note of the fact that deceased was only a student and not yet earning anything, ld. Tribunal has assessed notional income of as ₹12,000/- per month. I find no error in the same. 10. The age of the deceased was determined to be 21 years at the time of accident on the basis of pleadings. Accordingly, Tribunal had made an addition of 40% towards future prospects; and unmarried at the time of accident deduction of 50% was correctly made towards personal expenses. Ld. Tribunal had further made a deduction of 50% towards contributory negligence. Under the conventional heads Tribu amount of ₹15,000/ by way of consortium; and compensation of Sr. No. Heads 1. Loss of Dependency to claimant No.1 Hargopal father of deceased Simranpreet Kaur 2. Loss of Dependency to claimant No.2 Bholi mother of deceased Simranpreet Kaur 3. Funeral Expenses to claimant No.1 Hargop 4. Loss of estate to both the claimants in equal share 5. Loss of filial consortium to claimants No.1 and 2 Hargopal and Bholi 6. Total 2024 (O&M) companies in which she would have been offered package of more than per month. However, they said averments/claims of of hypothetic. Nonetheless, it cannot be ignored that the claimants had produced documentary evidence Ex.P4 to Ex.P18 pertaining to the educational qualifications of the deceased; the most pertinent being Ex.P16, which is c Bachelor of Computer Applications of the deceased. Keeping in view the aforesaid facts, however, also taking note of the fact that deceased was only a student and not yet earning anything, ld. Tribunal has assessed notional income of per month. I find no error in the same. The age of the deceased was determined to be 21 years at the time of accident on the basis of pleadings. Accordingly, Tribunal had made an addition of 40% towards future prospects; and applied multiplier of 15. As deceased was unmarried at the time of accident deduction of 50% was correctly made towards personal expenses. Ld. Tribunal had further made a deduction of 50% towards contributory negligence. Under the conventional heads Tribu ₹15,000/- towards funeral expenses; by way of consortium; and ₹15,000 towards loss of estate, thereby awarding total compensation of ₹8,66,000- in the following manner: Heads Calculation (in Rs.) Loss of Dependency to claimant No.1 Hargopal father of deceased Simranpreet Kaur ₹ Loss of Dependency to claimant No.2 Bholi mother of deceased Simranpreet Kaur ₹ Funeral Expenses to claimant No.1 Hargopal ₹ Loss of estate to both the claimants in equal share ₹ Loss of filial consortium to claimants No.1 and 2 Hargopal and Bholi ₹ Total ₹ -4- companies in which she would have been offered package of more than ₹1.50 lakh per month. However, they said averments/claims of the appellants are in the realm of hypothetic. Nonetheless, it cannot be ignored that the claimants had produced documentary evidence Ex.P4 to Ex.P18 pertaining to the educational qualifications of the deceased; the most pertinent being Ex.P16, which is copy of certificate of Bachelor of Computer Applications of the deceased. Keeping in view the aforesaid facts, however, also taking note of the fact that deceased was only a student and not yet earning anything, ld. Tribunal has assessed notional income of the deceased per month. I find no error in the same. The age of the deceased was determined to be 21 years at the time of accident on the basis of pleadings. Accordingly, Tribunal had made an addition of applied multiplier of 15. As deceased was unmarried at the time of accident deduction of 50% was correctly made towards personal expenses. Ld. Tribunal had further made a deduction of 50% towards contributory negligence. Under the conventional heads Tribunal had awarded an towards funeral expenses; ₹40,000 each to both the claimants ₹15,000 towards loss of estate, thereby awarding total in the following manner:- Calculation (in Rs.) ₹3,56,000/- ₹4,00,000/- ₹15,000/- ₹15,000/- ₹80,000/- (40,000/- each) ₹8,66,000/- ₹1.50 lakh the appellants are in the realm of hypothetic. Nonetheless, it cannot be ignored that the claimants had produced documentary evidence Ex.P4 to Ex.P18 pertaining to the educational qualifications opy of certificate of Bachelor of Computer Applications of the deceased. Keeping in view the aforesaid facts, however, also taking note of the fact that deceased was only a student and the deceased The age of the deceased was determined to be 21 years at the time of accident on the basis of pleadings. Accordingly, Tribunal had made an addition of applied multiplier of 15. As deceased was unmarried at the time of accident deduction of 50% was correctly made towards personal expenses. Ld. Tribunal had further made a deduction of 50% towards nal had awarded an ₹40,000 each to both the claimants ₹15,000 towards loss of estate, thereby awarding total TRIPTI SAINI 2026.05.26 09:08 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-659-2024 (O&M) 11. It may also be pointed out that in respect of the above dated 23.11.2021, FIR No.277 of 25.11.2021 had been registered on the basis of statement made by Jashandeep Singh, brother of the deceased, who had stated himself to be eyewitness of the before the Tribunal as PW2 and had deposed that even though deceased was standing on the side of the road, the offending car had hit into his sister. Even in his cross-examination PW was standing on the edge of the road. From the deposition of eye PW2/complainant, ld. Tribunal had returned the finding on Issue No.1 partly in favour of the claimants by holding that accident had taken place partly du and negligent driving on part of respondent No.1; and therefore, deceased was not the sole cause of the accident as the respondent no.1 was also negligent. Accordingly, the claimants were held entitled to compensation. 12. It may, however, be p 25.11.2021, respondent No.1 has been acquitted by the learned Judicial Magistrate. First Class Ludhiana, vide judgment dated 26.02.2024, as the said Jashandeep Singh S/o Hargopal Singh, while appearing in the crimin hostile. Relevant findings of the ld. JMIC in this regard are in para judgment dated 26.02.2024, relevant extract of which is as follows: “……… the accus Jashandeep Singh. Prosecution has examined complainant PW1 Jashandeep Singh but during his examination support the case of prosecution. Thereafter, on the request of learned APP for the State, above said witness has been declared hostile. He has been cross examined by learned APP for the State, but learned APP for the State could not find fruitful from his cross examination 2024 (O&M) It may also be pointed out that in respect of the above dated 23.11.2021, FIR No.277 of 25.11.2021 had been registered on the basis of statement made by Jashandeep Singh, brother of the deceased, who had stated himself to be eyewitness of the said accident. Jashandeep Singh had appeared before the Tribunal as PW2 and had deposed that even though deceased was standing on the side of the road, the offending car had hit into his sister. Even in examination PW-2 has stated that the acci was standing on the edge of the road. From the deposition of eye PW2/complainant, ld. Tribunal had returned the finding on Issue No.1 partly in favour of the claimants by holding that accident had taken place partly du and negligent driving on part of respondent No.1; and therefore, deceased was not the sole cause of the accident as the respondent no.1 was also negligent. Accordingly, the claimants were held entitled to compensation. It may, however, be pointed out that in the FIR No.277 dated. .11.2021, respondent No.1 has been acquitted by the learned Judicial Magistrate. First Class Ludhiana, vide judgment dated 26.02.2024, as the said Jashandeep Singh S/o Hargopal Singh, while appearing in the crimin hostile. Relevant findings of the ld. JMIC in this regard are in para judgment dated 26.02.2024, relevant extract of which is as follows: “………As per the prosecution story, the case was registered against the accused Tejinder Singh on the basis of statement of complainant Jashandeep Singh. Prosecution has examined complainant PW1 Jashandeep Singh but during his examination support the case of prosecution. Thereafter, on the request of learned APP for the State, above said witness has been declared hostile. He has been cross examined by learned APP for the State, but learned APP for the State could not find fruitful from his cross examination -5- It may also be pointed out that in respect of the above-said accident dated 23.11.2021, FIR No.277 of 25.11.2021 had been registered on the basis of statement made by Jashandeep Singh, brother of the deceased, who had stated said accident. Jashandeep Singh had appeared before the Tribunal as PW2 and had deposed that even though deceased was standing on the side of the road, the offending car had hit into his sister. Even in 2 has stated that the accident occurred when his sister was standing on the edge of the road. From the deposition of eye-witness PW2/complainant, ld. Tribunal had returned the finding on Issue No.1 partly in favour of the claimants by holding that accident had taken place partly due to rash and negligent driving on part of respondent No.1; and therefore, deceased was not the sole cause of the accident as the respondent no.1 was also negligent. Accordingly, the claimants were held entitled to compensation. ointed out that in the FIR No.277 dated. .11.2021, respondent No.1 has been acquitted by the learned Judicial Magistrate. First Class Ludhiana, vide judgment dated 26.02.2024, as the said Jashandeep Singh S/o Hargopal Singh, while appearing in the criminal trial as PW1 has turned hostile. Relevant findings of the ld. JMIC in this regard are in para-No.12 of the judgment dated 26.02.2024, relevant extract of which is as follows: - As per the prosecution story, the case was registered against ed Tejinder Singh on the basis of statement of complainant Jashandeep Singh. Prosecution has examined complainant PW1 Jashandeep Singh but during his examination-in-chief, he did not support the case of prosecution. Thereafter, on the request of learned P for the State, above said witness has been declared hostile. He has been cross examined by learned APP for the State, but learned APP for the State could not find fruitful from his cross examination said accident dated 23.11.2021, FIR No.277 of 25.11.2021 had been registered on the basis of statement made by Jashandeep Singh, brother of the deceased, who had stated said accident. Jashandeep Singh had appeared before the Tribunal as PW2 and had deposed that even though deceased was standing on the side of the road, the offending car had hit into his sister. Even in dent occurred when his sister witness PW2/complainant, ld. Tribunal had returned the finding on Issue No.1 partly in e to rash and negligent driving on part of respondent No.1; and therefore, deceased was not the sole cause of the accident as the respondent no.1 was also negligent. ointed out that in the FIR No.277 dated. .11.2021, respondent No.1 has been acquitted by the learned Judicial Magistrate. First Class Ludhiana, vide judgment dated 26.02.2024, as the said Jashandeep al trial as PW1 has turned No.12 of the As per the prosecution story, the case was registered against ed Tejinder Singh on the basis of statement of complainant Jashandeep Singh. Prosecution has examined complainant PW1 chief, he did not support the case of prosecution. Thereafter, on the request of learned P for the State, above said witness has been declared hostile. He has been cross examined by learned APP for the State, but learned APP for the State could not find fruitful from his cross examination TRIPTI SAINI 2026.05.26 09:08 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-659-2024 (O&M) which can be helpful to the case of prosecution to prov of accused.” 13. A bare reading of the above fact shows that the claimants’ side has turned turtle on its previous statement. to be decided on the preponderance of probabilities. However, this Cou shut its eyes in an ostrich like manner taken by the claimants' side in the criminal trial. attributed to the Tribunal. From the above noted facts, it is clear that the claimant side has deposed falsely my view that the said act of the claimant 14. I am supported in my view by General Insurance Company Limited Vs. 2014 decided on 03.12.2019, “(6) Court in the case of versus Kamla Devi and others 2010(53) RCR (Civil) 651, was specifically held that in case an eye witness gives totally different version before the Court conducting trial in criminal case from the statement testimony of such a witness is unworthy of being accepted and the evidence should be simply rejected. In fact, the learned Single Bench came down heavily on such witness and held that the said witness also liable for perjury.” 15. This Court in abovesaid judgment in Company Limited Vs. Kamla Devi & Others” 251230 has held 2024 (O&M) which can be helpful to the case of prosecution to prov of accused.” A bare reading of the above fact shows that the claimants’ side has turned turtle on its previous statement. No doubt, proceedings under the Act have to be decided on the preponderance of probabilities. However, this Cou shut its eyes in an ostrich like manner to the starkly taken by the claimants' side in the criminal trial. attributed to the contrary statements made by From the above noted facts, it is clear that the claimant side has before the Tribunal only with a view to get the compensation. my view that the said act of the claimant-side amounts to perjury. I am supported in my view by a judgment of this Court in General Insurance Company Limited Vs. Jeeto 2014 decided on 03.12.2019, wherein it is held that: “(6) This Court cannot loose sight of the judgment rendered by this Court in the case of United India Insurance Company Limited versus Kamla Devi and others 2010(53) RCR (Civil) 651, was specifically held that in case an eye witness gives totally different version before the Court conducting trial in criminal case from the statement made by the said eye witness before the Tribunal, the testimony of such a witness is unworthy of being accepted and the evidence should be simply rejected. In fact, the learned Single Bench came down heavily on such witness and held that the said witness also liable for perjury.” This Court in abovesaid judgment in Company Limited Vs. Kamla Devi & Others” has held that: -6- which can be helpful to the case of prosecution to prove alleged guilt A bare reading of the above fact shows that the claimants’ side has No doubt, proceedings under the Act have to be decided on the preponderance of probabilities. However, this Court cannot starkly diametrically opposite stance taken by the claimants' side in the criminal trial. Thus, no credence can be made by the claimants before the learned From the above noted facts, it is clear that the claimant side has before the Tribunal only with a view to get the compensation. It is side amounts to perjury. a judgment of this Court in “Shri Ram Jeeto Devi & Others” FAO-2231 wherein it is held that: - This Court cannot loose sight of the judgment rendered by this United India Insurance Company Limited versus Kamla Devi and others 2010(53) RCR (Civil) 651, wherein it was specifically held that in case an eye witness gives totally different version before the Court conducting trial in criminal case from the made by the said eye witness before the Tribunal, the testimony of such a witness is unworthy of being accepted and the evidence should be simply rejected. In fact, the learned Single Bench came down heavily on such witness and held that the said witness This Court in abovesaid judgment in “United India Insurance Company Limited Vs. Kamla Devi & Others” (P&H) : Law Finder Doc Id # e alleged guilt A bare reading of the above fact shows that the claimants’ side has No doubt, proceedings under the Act have rt cannot diametrically opposite stance Thus, no credence can be before the learned From the above noted facts, it is clear that the claimant side has It is “Shri Ram 2231- This Court cannot loose sight of the judgment rendered by this United India Insurance Company Limited wherein it was specifically held that in case an eye witness gives totally different version before the Court conducting trial in criminal case from the made by the said eye witness before the Tribunal, the testimony of such a witness is unworthy of being accepted and the evidence should be simply rejected. In fact, the learned Single Bench came down heavily on such witness and held that the said witness is “United India Insurance (P&H) : Law Finder Doc Id # TRIPTI SAINI 2026.05.26 09:08 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-659-2024 (O&M) "5. It should still have been possible for the Tribunal to take a deci criminal court. The several decisions which have come about on this issue are to the effect that a judgment in a criminal court is not binding on the Tribunal; the non the fact of involvement of the vehicle as found by the criminal court is not binding. While the Tribunal is competent to assess the evidence which is brought before it and take an independent decision, then the point that has to be seen is wh name before the Tribunal to come a finding that the particular vehicle was involved in the accident. It can be either that the version of Sitar Mohd. cannot be relied for he has contradicted himself wholesale with the evidence which was placed before the Court. Alternatively if any explanation had been given by the witness as to why he deposed falsehood before the criminal court, even such an explanation could have been accepted to enter a finding that the accident took place only involving the particular insured's vehicle. In this case, no explanation has been given by the witness as to why he stated before the criminal court that he did not know which vehicle the accident. He would, on the other hand, defy that he ever made any such statement before the made before the criminal court to be exhibited for contradiction before the Tribunal. It must be re court case by a witness is also on oath. If he was uttering falsehood, he was liable for perjury. If there was contradiction between the version elicited criminal court t The Tribunal could have simply rejected the whole evidence. If it was going to pick out one line from chief examination to say that the insured's vehicle was involved in the accident, the Tribunal was doin something which is not a judicial function but a travesty of justice.” 2024 (O&M) "5. It should still have been possible for the Tribunal to take a decision uninfluenced by any decision that may have come before the criminal court. The several decisions which have come about on this issue are to the effect that a judgment in a criminal court is not binding on the Tribunal; the non-filing of a FIR is not m the fact of involvement of the vehicle as found by the criminal court is not binding. While the Tribunal is competent to assess the evidence which is brought before it and take an independent decision, then the point that has to be seen is whether there was any evidence worth its name before the Tribunal to come a finding that the particular vehicle was involved in the accident. It can be either that the version of Sitar Mohd. cannot be relied for he has contradicted himself wholesale with the version given before the criminal court or looked for other evidence which was placed before the Court. Alternatively if any explanation had been given by the witness as to why he deposed falsehood before the criminal court, even such an explanation could have been accepted to enter a finding that the accident took place only involving the particular insured's vehicle. In this case, no explanation has been given by the witness as to why he stated before the criminal court that he did not know which vehicle the accident. He would, on the other hand, defy that he ever made any such statement before the criminal court, necessitating the statement made before the criminal court to be exhibited for contradiction before the Tribunal. It must be re court case by a witness is also on oath. If he was uttering falsehood, he was liable for perjury. If there was contradiction between the version elicited before the Tribunal to the statement made before the criminal court then such a witness will be unworthy of acceptance. The Tribunal could have simply rejected the whole evidence. If it was going to pick out one line from chief examination to say that the insured's vehicle was involved in the accident, the Tribunal was doin something which is not a judicial function but a travesty of justice.” -7- "5. It should still have been possible for the Tribunal to take a sion uninfluenced by any decision that may have come before the criminal court. The several decisions which have come about on this issue are to the effect that a judgment in a criminal court is not filing of a FIR is not material; even the fact of involvement of the vehicle as found by the criminal court is not binding. While the Tribunal is competent to assess the evidence which is brought before it and take an independent decision, then the ether there was any evidence worth its name before the Tribunal to come a finding that the particular vehicle was involved in the accident. It can be either that the version of Sitar Mohd. cannot be relied for he has contradicted himself wholesale with version given before the criminal court or looked for other evidence which was placed before the Court. Alternatively if any explanation had been given by the witness as to why he deposed falsehood before the criminal court, even such an explanation could have been accepted to enter a finding that the accident took place only involving the particular insured's vehicle. In this case, no explanation has been given by the witness as to why he stated before the criminal court that he did not know which vehicle was involved in the accident. He would, on the other hand, defy that he ever made any criminal court, necessitating the statement made before the criminal court to be exhibited for contradiction before the Tribunal. It must be remembered a statement in criminal court case by a witness is also on oath. If he was uttering falsehood, he was liable for perjury. If there was contradiction between the before the Tribunal to the statement made before the hen such a witness will be unworthy of acceptance. The Tribunal could have simply rejected the whole evidence. If it was going to pick out one line from chief examination to say that the insured's vehicle was involved in the accident, the Tribunal was doin something which is not a judicial function but a travesty of justice.” "5. It should still have been possible for the Tribunal to take a sion uninfluenced by any decision that may have come before the criminal court. The several decisions which have come about on this issue are to the effect that a judgment in a criminal court is not aterial; even the fact of involvement of the vehicle as found by the criminal court is not binding. While the Tribunal is competent to assess the evidence which is brought before it and take an independent decision, then the ether there was any evidence worth its name before the Tribunal to come a finding that the particular vehicle was involved in the accident. It can be either that the version of Sitar Mohd. cannot be relied for he has contradicted himself wholesale with version given before the criminal court or looked for other evidence which was placed before the Court. Alternatively if any explanation had been given by the witness as to why he deposed falsehood before the criminal court, even such an explanation could have been accepted to enter a finding that the accident took place only involving the particular insured's vehicle. In this case, no explanation has been given by the witness as to why he stated before was involved in the accident. He would, on the other hand, defy that he ever made any criminal court, necessitating the statement made before the criminal court to be exhibited for contradiction membered a statement in criminal court case by a witness is also on oath. If he was uttering falsehood, he was liable for perjury. If there was contradiction between the before the Tribunal to the statement made before the hen such a witness will be unworthy of acceptance. The Tribunal could have simply rejected the whole evidence. If it was going to pick out one line from chief examination to say that the insured's vehicle was involved in the accident, the Tribunal was doing something which is not a judicial function but a travesty of justice.” TRIPTI SAINI 2026.05.26 09:08 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-659-2024 (O&M) 16. Learned counsel for the appellants is unable to dispute or controvert the aforesaid facts, findings, and legal position. Definitely, no case is made out for enhancement of 17. Thus, the present Appeal stands, 18. Pending application(s), if any, also stand(s) disposed of. April 21, 2026 tripti Whether speaking/non Whether reportable 2024 (O&M) Learned counsel for the appellants is unable to dispute or controvert the aforesaid facts, findings, and legal position. Definitely, no case is made out for enhancement of compensation. Thus, the present Appeal stands, dismissed Pending application(s), if any, also stand(s) disposed of. Whether speaking/non-speaking : Speaking Whether reportable : Yes/No -8- Learned counsel for the appellants is unable to dispute or controvert the aforesaid facts, findings, and legal position. Definitely, no case is made out for dismissed. Pending application(s), if any, also stand(s) disposed of. (NIDHI GUPTA) JUDGE speaking : Speaking : Yes/No Learned counsel for the appellants is unable to dispute or controvert the aforesaid facts, findings, and legal position. Definitely, no case is made out for TRIPTI SAINI 2026.05.26 09:08 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document