FAO-1270 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT 224 BALJEET SINGH & ORS SURESH KUMAR & ORS CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE Present: SUVIR SEHGAL 1. Accident Claims Tribunal, Panipat (for short petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act ( filed by the appellants this Court by way of 1270-2013 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH BALJEET SINGH & ORS VS. SURESH KUMAR & ORS CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUVIR SEHGAL Ms. Vamika Johar, Advocate & Ms. Kanchan Sindhu, Advocate for Mr. Pritam Singh Saini, Advocate for the appellants. Mr. Ashish Gupta, Advocate for Mr. P.C. Gupta, Advocate for respondents No.1 and 2. Ms. Manvi Verma, Advocate for Mr. Rajneesh Malhotra, Advocate for respondent No.3-Insurance Company. **** SUVIR SEHGAL, J. Aggrieved of award dated 02.06.2012 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Panipat (for short under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act ( filed by the appellants/claimants has been dismissed, this Court by way of instant appeal. IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO-1270-2013 Date of decision:14.05.2025 ...PETITIONERS ...RESPONDENTS SUVIR SEHGAL Ms. Vamika Johar, Advocate & Ms. Kanchan Sindhu, Advocate for Mr. Pritam Singh Saini, Advocate Mr. Ashish Gupta, Advocate for Ms. Manvi Verma, Advocate for Mr. Rajneesh Malhotra, Advocate Insurance Company. Aggrieved of award dated 02.06.2012 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Panipat (for short “the Tribunal”), whereby under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act (for short “MV Act claimants has been dismissed, they have approached .2025 Aggrieved of award dated 02.06.2012 passed by the Motor ), whereby a MV Act”) they have approached Sheetal 2025.05.20 17:24 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment High Court, Chandigarh FAO-1270 2. produced that the death of Raj Kumar in by Suresh Kumar had been established evidence and reject not appreciated the settled legal position and has procee premise while 3. the respondents of accident nor the involvement of the offending vehicle. 4. respective submissions, this Court is of the view that the award passed by the Tribunal deserves to be set aside and to the Tribunal. In order to establish that death of Raj Kumar occurred in a vehicular accident on 23.11.2010, claimants produced brother of the deceased, who was also the his affidavit Ex.PW3 and deposed HR-40-A- had given the police cannot be a ground to disbelieve his testimony. Besides exhibiting the FIR, claimants produced the final report submitted by the Investigating Agency under Section 173 Cr.P.C. Kumar was facing criminal trial. Tribunal placed reliance upon the judgment 1270-2013 -2- By making a reference to the produced before the Tribunal, counsel for the claimants that the death of Raj Kumar in a vehicular accident being by Suresh Kumar had been established, but evidence and rejecting the claim petition. Counsel not appreciated the settled legal position and has procee while deciding the claim petition. While supporting the award passed by the Tribunal, counsel for the respondents have argued that appellants have neither of accident nor the involvement of the offending vehicle. Having heard counsel for the parties and after considering their respective submissions, this Court is of the view that the award passed by the Tribunal deserves to be set aside and to the Tribunal. In order to establish that death of Raj Kumar occurred in a vehicular accident on 23.11.2010, claimants produced brother of the deceased, who was also the his affidavit Ex.PW3/A, he deposed the mode and manner of the accident deposed that Suresh Kumar, the driver of the offending vehicle bearing -4497 was negligent and reckless while driving. Mere fact that he had given a different vehicle number when his statement was recorded by the police cannot be a ground to disbelieve his testimony. Besides exhibiting the FIR, claimants produced the final report submitted by the Investigating Agency under Section 173 Cr.P.C., Ex.P3 Kumar was facing criminal trial. Tribunal placed reliance upon the judgment a reference to the ocular and documentary evidence before the Tribunal, counsel for the claimants/appellants has urged a vehicular accident being negligently driven , but Tribunal erred in discarding the the claim petition. Counsel asserts that Tribunal has not appreciated the settled legal position and has proceeded on wrong the claim petition. While supporting the award passed by the Tribunal, counsel for that appellants have neither proved the factum of accident nor the involvement of the offending vehicle. heard counsel for the parties and after considering their respective submissions, this Court is of the view that the award passed by the Tribunal deserves to be set aside and the matter has to be remitted back to the Tribunal. In order to establish that death of Raj Kumar occurred in a vehicular accident on 23.11.2010, claimants produced Sahab Singh-PW3, brother of the deceased, who was also the informant of the FIR, Ex.P-1. In , he deposed the mode and manner of the accident that Suresh Kumar, the driver of the offending vehicle bearing 4497 was negligent and reckless while driving. Mere fact that he when his statement was recorded by the police cannot be a ground to disbelieve his testimony. Besides exhibiting the FIR, claimants produced the final report submitted by the Investigating Ex.P3, and it was contended that Suresh Kumar was facing criminal trial. Tribunal placed reliance upon the judgment ocular and documentary evidence appellants has urged negligently driven Tribunal erred in discarding the that Tribunal has ded on wrong While supporting the award passed by the Tribunal, counsel for the factum heard counsel for the parties and after considering their respective submissions, this Court is of the view that the award passed by the matter has to be remitted back to the Tribunal. In order to establish that death of Raj Kumar occurred in a PW3, 1. In , he deposed the mode and manner of the accident that Suresh Kumar, the driver of the offending vehicle bearing 4497 was negligent and reckless while driving. Mere fact that he when his statement was recorded by the police cannot be a ground to disbelieve his testimony. Besides exhibiting the FIR, claimants produced the final report submitted by the Investigating Suresh Kumar was facing criminal trial. Tribunal placed reliance upon the judgment Sheetal 2025.05.20 17:24 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment High Court, Chandigarh FAO-1270 passed by this Court in 582 to come to the conclusion that the mere registration of an FIR, framing of a charge and the judgment of conviction or acquittal by the criminal Court is not binding on the Tribunal that the onus to prove negligence is on the claimant. However, the finding legal position settled by the Supreme Court in others (2011) 4 SCC 693 the factum of accident, so that a victim is able to lodge a case f compensation. Registration of an FIR is vital in deciding motor accident claims cases and delay, if any, in lodging the same, should not be treated as fatal for such proceedings. 5. and others conclusion that reliance by the insurance company on (supra) is misconceived as the finding of a Single Judge of this Court in the said judgment that framing of a criminal charge i negligence is contrary to the Supreme Court judgment in Vs. Rajasthan State Transport Corporation and 486. This Court, therefore, holds that lay down good law. 6. contrary to the observations of the Supreme Court and cannot be sustained As the Tribunal has failed to appreciate the legal position, this Court has no 1270-2013 -3- passed by this Court in Ram Karan Vs. Zile Singh to come to the conclusion that the mere registration of an FIR, framing of a charge and the judgment of conviction or acquittal by the criminal Court is not binding on the Tribunal that the onus to prove negligence is on the claimant. However, the finding recorded by the Tribunal is contrary to the legal position settled by the Supreme Court in (2011) 4 SCC 693. Apex Court has held that lodging of FIR proves the factum of accident, so that a victim is able to lodge a case f compensation. Registration of an FIR is vital in deciding motor accident claims cases and delay, if any, in lodging the same, should not be treated as for such proceedings. In New India Assurance Company Limited Vs. Meenakshi and others 2021 (4) PLR 719, a Co-ordinate Bench of this Cour conclusion that reliance by the insurance company on is misconceived as the finding of a Single Judge of this Court in the said judgment that framing of a criminal charge i negligence is contrary to the Supreme Court judgment in Vs. Rajasthan State Transport Corporation and . This Court, therefore, holds that Ram Karan’s case (supra) lay down good law. The findings recorded by the Tribunal are contrary to the observations of the Supreme Court and cannot be sustained s the Tribunal has failed to appreciate the legal position, this Court has no Ram Karan Vs. Zile Singh, 2001 (3) RCR (Civil) to come to the conclusion that the mere registration of an FIR, framing of a charge and the judgment of conviction or acquittal by the criminal Court is not binding on the Tribunal that the onus to prove negligence is on the recorded by the Tribunal is contrary to the legal position settled by the Supreme Court in Ravi Vs. Badrinarayan and . Apex Court has held that lodging of FIR proves the factum of accident, so that a victim is able to lodge a case f compensation. Registration of an FIR is vital in deciding motor accident claims cases and delay, if any, in lodging the same, should not be treated as New India Assurance Company Limited Vs. Meenakshi ordinate Bench of this Court came to the conclusion that reliance by the insurance company on Ram Karan’s case is misconceived as the finding of a Single Judge of this Court in the said judgment that framing of a criminal charge is not sufficient to prove negligence is contrary to the Supreme Court judgment in Sunita and others Vs. Rajasthan State Transport Corporation and another (2020) 13 SCC Ram Karan’s case (supra) does not The findings recorded by the Tribunal are, therefore, clearly contrary to the observations of the Supreme Court and cannot be sustained s the Tribunal has failed to appreciate the legal position, this Court has no , 2001 (3) RCR (Civil) to come to the conclusion that the mere registration of an FIR, framing of a charge and the judgment of conviction or acquittal by the criminal Court is not binding on the Tribunal that the onus to prove negligence is on the recorded by the Tribunal is contrary to the arayan and . Apex Court has held that lodging of FIR proves the factum of accident, so that a victim is able to lodge a case for compensation. Registration of an FIR is vital in deciding motor accident claims cases and delay, if any, in lodging the same, should not be treated as New India Assurance Company Limited Vs. Meenakshi came to the Ram Karan’s case is misconceived as the finding of a Single Judge of this Court in the s not sufficient to prove Sunita and others (2020) 13 SCC does not clearly contrary to the observations of the Supreme Court and cannot be sustained. s the Tribunal has failed to appreciate the legal position, this Court has no Sheetal 2025.05.20 17:24 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment High Court, Chandigarh FAO-1270 option but to set aside the award and remit the matter to adjudication afresh. 7. passed by the Tribunal is set aside and the matter is remanded to the Tribunal to decide the claim pet 8. 9. at 10:00 A.M. for further proceedings in accordance with law. 10. claim nor examined the stand taken by the respondents examined by the observation made hereinabove. 14.05.2025 sheetal 1270-2013 -4- but to set aside the award and remit the matter to adjudication afresh. For the afore-going reasons, impugned award dated 02.06.2012 passed by the Tribunal is set aside and the matter is remanded to the Tribunal to decide the claim petition afresh. Appeal is disposed off. Parties are directed to appear before the Tribunal on 16.07.2025 at 10:00 A.M. for further proceedings in accordance with law. It is clarified that this Court has not gone into the merits of the nor examined the stand taken by the respondents examined by the Tribunal in accordance with law, observation made hereinabove. .2025 Whether Speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No but to set aside the award and remit the matter to the Tribunal for going reasons, impugned award dated 02.06.2012 passed by the Tribunal is set aside and the matter is remanded to the ition afresh. Parties are directed to appear before the Tribunal on 16.07.2025 at 10:00 A.M. for further proceedings in accordance with law. It is clarified that this Court has not gone into the merits of the nor examined the stand taken by the respondents, which shall be Tribunal in accordance with law, uninfluenced by any (SUVIR SEHGAL) JUDGE Yes/No Yes/No Tribunal for going reasons, impugned award dated 02.06.2012 passed by the Tribunal is set aside and the matter is remanded to the Parties are directed to appear before the Tribunal on 16.07.2025 It is clarified that this Court has not gone into the merits of the which shall be uninfluenced by any Sheetal 2025.05.20 17:24 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment High Court, Chandigarh