FAO No.1948 of 2001 (O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND 214. Jilo and others Sardul Singh 2. FAO No.1949 of 2001 (O&M) Chawli and another Sardul Singh and others 3. FAO No.1950 of 2001 (O&M) Roshani and others Sardul Singh and others 4. FAO No.1951 of 2001 (O&M) Silochna and others Sardul Singh and others 5. FAO No.1952 of Risali and others Sardul Singh and others 6. FAO No.1953 of 2001 Rajesh Kumar Sardul Singh and others CORAM: Present: FAO No.1948 of 2001 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO Date of Decision:21.08.2025 Jilo and others Vs l Singh and others FAO No.1949 of 2001 (O&M) Chawli and another Vs l Singh and others FAO No.1950 of 2001 (O&M) ni and others Vs l Singh and others FAO No.1951 of 2001 (O&M) Silochna and others Vs l Singh and others FAO No.1952 of 2001 (O&M) Risali and others Vs l Singh and others FAO No.1953 of 2001 Rajesh Kumar Vs Singh and others HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMARINDER SINGH GREWAL Mr. Nipun Verma, Advocate for the appellants. Mr. Lalit Garg, Advocate for respondent No.3-Insurance Company. Mr. Ajit Sihag, Advocate for respondent No.4. -.- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.1948 of 2001 (O&M) Date of Decision:21.08.2025 ...Appellants ...Respondents ...Appellants ...Respondents ...Appellants ...Respondents ...Appellants ...Respondents ...Appellants ...Respondents ...Appellant ...Respondents AMARINDER SINGH GREWAL Insurance Company. PANKAJ KUMAR 2025.08.28 18:00 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh FAO No.1948 of 2001 (O&M) AMARINDER SINGH GREWAL 1. Nos.1948 to 1953 of 2001 arising out of common award passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bhiwani (hereinafter referred the learned Tribunal) appellants-claimants seeking compensation Sukhbir, Hawa Singh, Dharam Pal, Ram Swarup and Kariya Devi vehicular accident held o were travelling in a 2. village Siwach, a truck bearing No.HR direction, dr struck against the of the road. sustained grievous injuries. had reported the matter to the police but the police in collusion with respondent No.1 respondent No.4 petitions, which stood dismissed by the learned Tribunal. 3. Tribunal has dismissed the claim petition that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of responde No.1 i.e. driver of the offending vehicle, which resulted into death of aforesaid persons compensation. FAO No.1948 of 2001 (O&M) -2- AMARINDER SINGH GREWAL J. (ORAL) This order of mine shall dispose of six appeals bearing FAO Nos.1948 to 1953 of 2001 arising out of common award passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bhiwani (hereinafter referred learned Tribunal) whereby separate claimants seeking compensation Sukhbir, Hawa Singh, Dharam Pal, Ram Swarup and Kariya Devi vehicular accident held on 16.10.1995 when the aforesaid deceased persons were travelling in a jugad from village Siwani to village Siwach. On 16.10.1995 at about 6 PM when the village Siwach, a truck bearing No.HR-39/1495 came from the opposite , driven by respondent No.1 in a rash and negligent manner and struck against the jugad, which was parked on a of the road. As a result of the impact, seven persons died and some other sustained grievous injuries. Partap Singh, on had reported the matter to the police but the police in collusion with respondent No.1 lodged a false FIR No.197 dated 16.10.1995 against respondent No.4. The appellants-claimants filed their respective claim which stood dismissed by the learned Tribunal. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that Tribunal has dismissed the claim petitions that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of responde No.1 i.e. driver of the offending vehicle, which resulted into death of aforesaid persons and, therefore, the appellants compensation. The learned Tribunal has dismissed the claim petitions (ORAL) This order of mine shall dispose of six appeals bearing FAO Nos.1948 to 1953 of 2001 arising out of common award passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bhiwani (hereinafter referred to as separate claim petitions filed by the claimants seeking compensation on account of death of Jai Singh, Sukhbir, Hawa Singh, Dharam Pal, Ram Swarup and Kariya Devi in a motor n 16.10.1995 when the aforesaid deceased persons from village Siwani to village Siwach. 16.10.1995 at about 6 PM when the jugad reached near 39/1495 came from the opposite iven by respondent No.1 in a rash and negligent manner and , which was parked on a kacha path towards left side As a result of the impact, seven persons died and some other Partap Singh, one of the occupants of the jugad had reported the matter to the police but the police in collusion with lodged a false FIR No.197 dated 16.10.1995 against claimants filed their respective claim which stood dismissed by the learned Tribunal. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the learned s by completely ignoring the fact that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of respondent No.1 i.e. driver of the offending vehicle, which resulted into death of the appellants-claimants are entitled for The learned Tribunal has dismissed the claim petitions This order of mine shall dispose of six appeals bearing FAO Nos.1948 to 1953 of 2001 arising out of common award passed by the to as filed by the death of Jai Singh, in a motor n 16.10.1995 when the aforesaid deceased persons near 39/1495 came from the opposite iven by respondent No.1 in a rash and negligent manner and path towards left side As a result of the impact, seven persons died and some other jugad had reported the matter to the police but the police in collusion with lodged a false FIR No.197 dated 16.10.1995 against claimants filed their respective claim the learned by completely ignoring the fact nt No.1 i.e. driver of the offending vehicle, which resulted into death of claimants are entitled for The learned Tribunal has dismissed the claim petitions PANKAJ KUMAR 2025.08.28 18:00 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh FAO No.1948 of 2001 (O&M) merely on the basis of assumptions that vide interim order dated 17.01.1998, an case was awarded on the basis of no fault liability under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 not to have been ordered to Section 166 of the under Section 140 of the Act of 1988 on the basis of no fault theory, as in that eventuality fault and negligence on the part of driver of offending vehicle is not required to be proved. 4. 4 submit that the award passed by the learned Tribunal is based on correct appreciation of material available before it and, therefore, no interference is required in the appeals preferred by the appellants 5. the paper book with their able assistance. 6. High Court premises and the papers were reconstructed. From a perusal of the award pas was not disputed. and reside in the same village, much less, driver of the to their village. No.1-driver of the offending truck had fled from the scene of accident the same is belied from the fact that it is respondent No.1 FIR bearing No.197 dated 16.10.199 jugad on the very day of accident accident had taken place due to rash and negligent driving of respondent FAO No.1948 of 2001 (O&M) -3- merely on the basis of assumptions and presumptions. It is also submitted vide interim order dated 17.01.1998, an awarded on the basis of no fault liability under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the Act of not to have been ordered to be refunded, Section 166 of the Act of 1988 fails. They are entitled to compensation under Section 140 of the Act of 1988 on the basis of no fault theory, as in that eventuality fault and negligence on the part of driver of offending vehicle is not required to be proved. Per contra, learned counsels app submit that the award passed by the learned Tribunal is based on correct appreciation of material available before it and, therefore, no interference is required in the appeals preferred by the appellants I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the paper book with their able assistance. Records of present appeals were burnt in a fire broke out in the High Court premises and the papers were reconstructed. From a perusal of the award passed by the learned Tribunal, it is crystal clear that the accident was not disputed. Both the eye witnesses i.e. PW1 and PW4 are relatives and reside in the same village, much less, driver of the to their village. PW-1 Partap Singh in his testimony stated that driver of the offending truck had fled from the scene of accident the same is belied from the fact that it is respondent No.1 FIR bearing No.197 dated 16.10.1995 against respondent No.4 on the very day of accident, categorically stating therein that the accident had taken place due to rash and negligent driving of respondent and presumptions. It is also submitted vide interim order dated 17.01.1998, an amount of Rs.50,000/- in each awarded on the basis of no fault liability under Section 140 of the (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1988) ought in case the claim petition under They are entitled to compensation under Section 140 of the Act of 1988 on the basis of no fault theory, as in that eventuality fault and negligence on the part of driver of offending Per contra, learned counsels appearing for respondents No.3 and submit that the award passed by the learned Tribunal is based on correct appreciation of material available before it and, therefore, no interference is required in the appeals preferred by the appellants-claimants. have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused were burnt in a fire broke out in the High Court premises and the papers were reconstructed. From a perusal of sed by the learned Tribunal, it is crystal clear that the accident witnesses i.e. PW1 and PW4 are relatives and reside in the same village, much less, driver of the jugad also belonged in his testimony stated that respondent driver of the offending truck had fled from the scene of accident but the same is belied from the fact that it is respondent No.1, who lodged an against respondent No.4-driver of the categorically stating therein that the accident had taken place due to rash and negligent driving of respondent and presumptions. It is also submitted in each awarded on the basis of no fault liability under Section 140 of the ought under They are entitled to compensation under Section 140 of the Act of 1988 on the basis of no fault theory, as in that eventuality fault and negligence on the part of driver of offending earing for respondents No.3 and submit that the award passed by the learned Tribunal is based on correct appreciation of material available before it and, therefore, no interference is have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused were burnt in a fire broke out in the High Court premises and the papers were reconstructed. From a perusal of sed by the learned Tribunal, it is crystal clear that the accident witnesses i.e. PW1 and PW4 are relatives also belonged respondent but who lodged an of the categorically stating therein that the accident had taken place due to rash and negligent driving of respondent PANKAJ KUMAR 2025.08.28 18:00 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh FAO No.1948 of 2001 (O&M) No.4. To rebut the said version, the appellants examine respondent No.4 come forward to complain to the higher authorities regarding his false implication in the aforesaid FIR nor any counter FIR was got registered on his behalf or on behalf of any complainant, though it is alleged appellants-claimants against respondent No.1 but no FIR was registered. complaint was got registered against respondent No.4 under Section 304 IPC wherein after police passengers to sit in the charge under Section 304 IPC. Singh and all claimants and respondent No.4 belonged to the same village. PW-1 Partap Singh also filed a criminal complaint on 05.06.1996 before the Magistrate under Sections 279/337/304 same was filed after a period of 75 d appellants-claimants had failed to prove that respondent No.1 offending vehicle was rash and negligent in his driving for the accident occurred on 7. finds no reasons to interfere with the award passed by the learned Tribunal. 8. granted interim compensation under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act i.e., under ‘no fault liability’ the same in case their claim petition fails on merits. appellants-claimants is that have been ordered FAO No.1948 of 2001 (O&M) -4- To rebut the said version, the appellants examine respondent No.4-driver of the jugad come forward to complain to the higher authorities regarding his false implication in the aforesaid FIR nor any counter FIR was got registered on his behalf or on behalf of any complainant, though it is alleged claimants that a complaint was made to the police against respondent No.1 but no FIR was registered. complaint was got registered against respondent No.4 under Section 304 IPC wherein after police investigation, it came forth that he allowed 20 passengers to sit in the jugad, though in criminal trial he was acquitted charge under Section 304 IPC. PW-4 Ved Parkash is related to PW and all claimants and respondent No.4 belonged to the same village. 1 Partap Singh also filed a criminal complaint on 05.06.1996 before the Magistrate under Sections 279/337/304-A IPC, which stood dismissed as the same was filed after a period of 75 days from the date of accident. claimants had failed to prove that respondent No.1 offending vehicle was rash and negligent in his driving for the accident occurred on 16.10.1995. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Court finds no reasons to interfere with the award passed by the learned Tribunal. Though the learned Tribunal granted interim compensation under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act under ‘no fault liability’ but it imposed a condition that they will refund the same in case their claim petition fails on merits. claimants is that the said amount of compensation ordered to refund. Even though the appeal fails in To rebut the said version, the appellants-claimants did not even jugad. Even respondent No.4 did not come forward to complain to the higher authorities regarding his false implication in the aforesaid FIR nor any counter FIR was got registered on his behalf or on behalf of any complainant, though it is alleged by the that a complaint was made to the police by PW- against respondent No.1 but no FIR was registered. Rather, a criminal complaint was got registered against respondent No.4 under Section 304 IPC came forth that he allowed 20 in criminal trial he was acquitted from Ved Parkash is related to PW-1 Partap and all claimants and respondent No.4 belonged to the same village. 1 Partap Singh also filed a criminal complaint on 05.06.1996 before the A IPC, which stood dismissed as the ays from the date of accident. Thus, the claimants had failed to prove that respondent No.1-driver of offending vehicle was rash and negligent in his driving and was responsible facts and circumstances, this Court finds no reasons to interfere with the award passed by the learned Tribunal. vide order dated 17.01.1998 had granted interim compensation under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act imposed a condition that they will refund the same in case their claim petition fails on merits. The grievance of the the said amount of compensation ought not to ven though the appeal fails in so far as the claimants did not even Even respondent No.4 did not come forward to complain to the higher authorities regarding his false implication in the aforesaid FIR nor any counter FIR was got registered on by the -1 Rather, a criminal complaint was got registered against respondent No.4 under Section 304 IPC came forth that he allowed 20 from 1 Partap and all claimants and respondent No.4 belonged to the same village. 1 Partap Singh also filed a criminal complaint on 05.06.1996 before the A IPC, which stood dismissed as the the driver of and was responsible facts and circumstances, this Court finds no reasons to interfere with the award passed by the learned Tribunal. vide order dated 17.01.1998 had granted interim compensation under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act imposed a condition that they will refund The grievance of the ought not to the PANKAJ KUMAR 2025.08.28 18:00 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh FAO No.1948 of 2001 (O&M) claim petition under Section 166 of the Act the appellants and negligent driving by the driver of the claimants must succeed to the limited extent of relief under Section 140 of the Act. This Court has Resultantly, t compensation granted under Section 140 of the Act of 1988 is set aside. case the amount is refunded by the applicants 17.01.1998 passed by the learned Tribunal, r jointly and severally claimants towards compensation under Section 140 of the Act account of the death of Swarup and Kari of filing of the claim petition till of amount by the insurance company in terms of order dated 17.01.1998 passed by the learned Tribunal compensation under Section 140 of the Act of 1988 shall be payable by respondent No.3 9. observations. 10. August 21, 2025 Pankaj* FAO No.1948 of 2001 (O&M) -5- claim petition under Section 166 of the Act the appellants-complainants have failed to substantiate the factum of rash and negligent driving by the driver of the must succeed to the limited extent of relief under Section 140 of This Court has no hesitation in moulding the relief on that basis. Resultantly, the finding of the learned Tribunal qua refund of the compensation granted under Section 140 of the Act of 1988 is set aside. case the amount is refunded by the applicants 17.01.1998 passed by the learned Tribunal, r jointly and severally liable to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/ towards compensation under Section 140 of the Act account of the death of Jai Singh, Sukhbir, Hawa Singh, Dharam Pal, Ram Swarup and Kariya Devi along with interest of filing of the claim petition till realization of amount by the insurance company in terms of order dated 17.01.1998 passed by the learned Tribunal, if any. Needle compensation under Section 140 of the Act of 1988 shall be payable by respondent No.3-Insurance company. Resultantly, all appeals are dismissed but with above observations. Pending misc. application(s), if any, also stand disp (AMARINDER SINGH GREWAL , 2025 Whether speaking/reasoned Whether reportable claim petition under Section 166 of the Act of 1988 in view of the fact that failed to substantiate the factum of rash and negligent driving by the driver of the offending truck, the appellants must succeed to the limited extent of relief under Section 140 of no hesitation in moulding the relief on that basis. finding of the learned Tribunal qua refund of the compensation granted under Section 140 of the Act of 1988 is set aside. In case the amount is refunded by the applicants-claimants in terms order dated 17.01.1998 passed by the learned Tribunal, respondent No.2 and 3 shall be liable to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- to the appellants towards compensation under Section 140 of the Act of 1988, on Jai Singh, Sukhbir, Hawa Singh, Dharam Pal, Ram along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date realization, excluding the period of deposit of amount by the insurance company in terms of order dated 17.01.1998 . Needless to say, the amount of compensation under Section 140 of the Act of 1988 shall be payable by Resultantly, all appeals are dismissed but with above Pending misc. application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. AMARINDER SINGH GREWAL) JUDGE Yes/No Yes/No of 1988 in view of the fact that failed to substantiate the factum of rash ck, the appellants- must succeed to the limited extent of relief under Section 140 of no hesitation in moulding the relief on that basis. finding of the learned Tribunal qua refund of the In claimants in terms order dated shall be to the appellants- , on Jai Singh, Sukhbir, Hawa Singh, Dharam Pal, Ram from the date excluding the period of deposit of amount by the insurance company in terms of order dated 17.01.1998 ss to say, the amount of compensation under Section 140 of the Act of 1988 shall be payable by Resultantly, all appeals are dismissed but with above PANKAJ KUMAR 2025.08.28 18:00 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh