IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA 128 United India Insurance Company Ltd. Shashi Kumar @ Sashi Kumar and others CORAM: Present:- NIDHI GUPTA J. (Oral) Insurance Company against the Award dated 20.2.2025 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, SAS Nagar, Mohali (hereinafter to be referred as ‘the learned Tribunal’) dated 05. 1988 (hereinafter to be referred as ‘the Act’) injured-claimant/respondent No.1 has been awarded compensation of Rs.35,67,521/ basis of pleadings and oral & documentary evidence adduced before it concluded that vehicular accident that took place on 22.4.2023 due to rash and negligent driving of Bus bearing Registration No.HP (hereinafter referred to as ‘the offending vehicle’), FAO-3105-2025 (O & M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO-3105-2025 Date of decision : United India Insurance Company Ltd. Versus Kumar @ Sashi Kumar and others CORAM:- HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA Mr. Vishwajit Bedi, Advocate for the appellant. NIDHI GUPTA J. (Oral) The present appeal has been filed by the appellant Insurance Company against the Award dated 20.2.2025 passed by the tor Accident Claims Tribunal, SAS Nagar, Mohali (hereinafter to be referred as ‘the learned Tribunal’) whereby dated 05.7.2023 filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter to be referred as ‘the Act’) claimant/respondent No.1 has been awarded compensation of Rs.35,67,521/- alongwith interest @7.5% per annum. Brief facts of the case are that the learned Tribunal on the basis of pleadings and oral & documentary evidence adduced before it concluded that the claimant had suffered injuries in the motor vehicular accident that took place on 22.4.2023 due to rash and negligent driving of Bus bearing Registration No.HP (hereinafter referred to as ‘the offending vehicle’), 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 2025 (O & M) Date of decision :-30.07.2025 …..Appellant Kumar @ Sashi Kumar and others …..Respondents HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA Vishwajit Bedi, Advocate The present appeal has been filed by the appellant- Insurance Company against the Award dated 20.2.2025 passed by the tor Accident Claims Tribunal, SAS Nagar, Mohali (hereinafter to whereby MACP Case No.134 7.2023 filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter to be referred as ‘the Act’) has been allowed and the claimant/respondent No.1 has been awarded compensation of alongwith interest @7.5% per annum. Brief facts of the case are that the learned Tribunal on the basis of pleadings and oral & documentary evidence adduced before it the claimant had suffered injuries in the motor vehicular accident that took place on 22.4.2023 due to rash and negligent driving of Bus bearing Registration No.HP-55-B-6186 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the offending vehicle’), being driven by VIJAY ASIJA 2025.07.31 19.48 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document respondent No.2, owned by respondent No.3 and insured by the appellant. Award inter alia wrongly implicated in the case as the claimant in his initial recorded in the stated that the accident had occurred as a f his eye, which caused him to lo driving. Learned counsel contends that the said crucial first statement of the claimant clearly establishes that the offending vehicle was not involved in the Bus. Further, evidence of RW inordinate delay in registration of the FI (Ex.P-8) under Sections 279 and 337 IPC, Police Station JwalaMukhi, which had been lodged after a delay of 33 days. It is submitted that from the above facts it is clear that the offending vehicle has been implicated by the claimant respondents. No explanation has been given for the delay in registration of the FIR. is not made out. Accordingly, learned counsel prays for setting aside of the impugne no merit whatsoever in the submissions made on behalf of the FAO-3105-2025 (O & M) respondent No.2, owned by respondent No.3 and insured by the appellant. Learned counsel for the appellant assails the i inter alia on the ground that the offending vehicle has been wrongly implicated in the case as the claimant in his initial recorded in the Daily Diary Report/DDR No.27 dated 22.4.2023 had stated that the accident had occurred as a f his eye, which caused him to lose control of the scooty driving. Learned counsel contends that the said crucial first statement of the claimant clearly establishes that the offending vehicle was not involved in the accident in question; and exonerates the driver of the Further, the said DDR No.27 stands duly proved from the evidence of RW-1 Head Constable Satish Kumar. Learned counsel further submits that there is an inordinate delay in registration of the FI under Sections 279 and 337 IPC, Police Station JwalaMukhi, which had been lodged after a delay of 33 days. It is submitted that from the above facts it is clear that the offending vehicle has been implicated by the claimant only with a view to grab money from the respondents. No explanation has been given for the delay in registration of the FIR. The negligence on the part of respondent No.1 is not made out. Accordingly, learned counsel prays for setting aside of the impugned Award. No other argument is made on behalf of the appellant. I have heard ld. Counsel and perused the case file.I find no merit whatsoever in the submissions made on behalf of the 2 respondent No.2, owned by respondent No.3 and insured by the Learned counsel for the appellant assails the impugned on the ground that the offending vehicle has been wrongly implicated in the case as the claimant in his initial statement Daily Diary Report/DDR No.27 dated 22.4.2023 had stated that the accident had occurred as a foreign particle had entered control of the scooty which he was driving. Learned counsel contends that the said crucial first statement of the claimant clearly establishes that the offending vehicle was not accident in question; and exonerates the driver of the the said DDR No.27 stands duly proved from the 1 Head Constable Satish Kumar. Learned counsel further submits that there is an inordinate delay in registration of the FIR No.83 dated 25.5.2023 under Sections 279 and 337 IPC, Police Station JwalaMukhi, which had been lodged after a delay of 33 days. It is submitted that from the above facts it is clear that the offending vehicle has been only with a view to grab money from the respondents. No explanation has been given for the delay in The negligence on the part of respondent No.1 is not made out. Accordingly, learned counsel prays for setting aside No other argument is made on behalf of the appellant. and perused the case file.I find no merit whatsoever in the submissions made on behalf of the VIJAY ASIJA 2025.07.31 19.48 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document appellant oath that the accident in question had taken place due to the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by respondent No.2. categorically driving the offending Bus in a rash and negligent manner struck into the scooty of the claimant by coming on wrong side of the road. Even in cross any statement as mentioned in the DDR and had furth the accident had occurred due to falling of foreign particle in his eye. Thus, in view of the unequivocal evidence of the claimant, there can be no doubt regarding the involvement of the offending vehicle in the accident in question. rejected also (Ex.P-8) was registered on the basis of statement of the claimant, for which the respondent No.2 is also facing criminal trial any alleged statement made by the claimant in DDR cannot over the statement made by Tribunal. appellant has suffered 80% disability Certificate (Ex.P thigh, above the knee. registration of FIR, the same holds no water in view of judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in FAO-3105-2025 (O & M) appellant as, the claimant, while disposing as PW1 had testified on oath that the accident in question had taken place due to the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by respondent No.2. categorically deposed by the claimant that respondent No. driving the offending Bus in a rash and negligent manner struck into the scooty of the claimant by coming on wrong side of the road. Even in cross-examination, the claimant had denied recording any statement as mentioned in the DDR and had furth the accident had occurred due to falling of foreign particle in his eye. Thus, in view of the unequivocal evidence of the claimant, there can be no doubt regarding the involvement of the offending vehicle in the accident in question. The above argument of the appellant is liable to be also in view of the fact that the 8) was registered on the basis of statement of the claimant, for which the respondent No.2 is also facing criminal trial any alleged statement made by the claimant in DDR cannot over the statement made by the claimant, on oath before the learned Furthermore, it is not denied that in the accident the appellant has suffered 80% disability as is evident from the Disability Certificate (Ex.P-6) and his right leg has been amputated from the thigh, above the knee. As regards contention of the appellant regarding delay in registration of FIR, the same holds no water in view of judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs. 3 the claimant, while disposing as PW1 had testified on oath that the accident in question had taken place due to the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by respondent No.2. It was by the claimant that respondent No.2 was driving the offending Bus in a rash and negligent manner and had struck into the scooty of the claimant by coming on wrong side of the examination, the claimant had denied recording any statement as mentioned in the DDR and had further denied that the accident had occurred due to falling of foreign particle in his eye. Thus, in view of the unequivocal evidence of the claimant, there can be no doubt regarding the involvement of the offending vehicle in the bove argument of the appellant is liable to be the FIR No.83 dated 25.5.2023 8) was registered on the basis of statement of the claimant, for which the respondent No.2 is also facing criminal trial. In any event, any alleged statement made by the claimant in DDR cannot over-ride on oath before the learned Furthermore, it is not denied that in the accident the as is evident from the Disability 6) and his right leg has been amputated from the As regards contention of the appellant regarding delay in registration of FIR, the same holds no water in view of judgment of New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs. VIJAY ASIJA 2025.07.31 19.48 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Velu and another that mere delay in filing an FIR cannot be the sole ground for rejecting a claim. July 30, 202 Vijay Asija Whether speaking/reasoned Yes / No Whether Reportable Yes / No FAO-3105-2025 (O & M) Velu and another Law Finder Doc Id #2685999 that mere delay in filing an FIR cannot be the sole ground for rejecting a claim. In view of the above, the present appeal is Pending application(s), if any also stand(s) disposed of. , 2025 Whether speaking/reasoned Yes / No Whether Reportable Yes / No 4 Law Finder Doc Id #2685999 wherein it is held that mere delay in filing an FIR cannot be the sole ground for In view of the above, the present appeal is dismissed. Pending application(s), if any also stand(s) disposed of. ( NIDHI GUPTA ) JUDGE VIJAY ASIJA 2025.07.31 19.48 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document