FAO-1892-2025 (O&M) 129 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA Sudesh Kumari and Another Ajit Singh and Others CORAM : HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA Present: Mr. Sahil Mehra, Advocate for Mr. Nipun Vashist, Advocate for the appellants. NIDHI GUPTA, J. CM-5951-CII-2025 Prayer in this application read with Section 151 of CPC is for condonation of delay of 661 days in filing the accompanying appeal. 2. It is delay of 661 days in filing t that the applicants are poor and rustic villagers who are not acquainted with the legal intricacies of law. It is submitted that even the learned counsel for the applicants had misled the applicants and progress. However, applicants have subsequently discovered that the appeal had not been filed. Now, the applicants have engaged the undersigned counsel for further proceedings. It is submitted that applicants ha not know the limitation period of filing the appeal. The delay has occurred in 2025 (O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH -.- FAO Date of Decision : 21.04. Sudesh Kumari and Another VERSUS Ajit Singh and Others CORAM : HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA Mr. Sahil Mehra, Advocate for Mr. Nipun Vashist, Advocate for the appellants. -.- NIDHI GUPTA, J. 2025 Prayer in this application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act read with Section 151 of CPC is for condonation of delay of 661 days in filing the accompanying appeal. It is inter alia, submitted by learned delay of 661 days in filing the present appeal has occurred on account of the fact that the applicants are poor and rustic villagers who are not acquainted with the legal intricacies of law. It is submitted that even the learned counsel for the applicants had misled the applicants and regularly told them that their appeal is in progress. However, applicants have subsequently discovered that the appeal had not been filed. Now, the applicants have engaged the undersigned counsel for further proceedings. It is submitted that applicants ha not know the limitation period of filing the appeal. The delay has occurred in -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO-1892-2025 (O&M) Date of Decision : 21.04.2026 ....Appellants ....Respondents CORAM : HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA Mr. Nipun Vashist, Advocate for the appellants. filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act read with Section 151 of CPC is for condonation of delay of 661 days in filing the learned counsel for the applicants that the he present appeal has occurred on account of the fact that the applicants are poor and rustic villagers who are not acquainted with the legal intricacies of law. It is submitted that even the learned counsel for the regularly told them that their appeal is in progress. However, applicants have subsequently discovered that the appeal had not been filed. Now, the applicants have engaged the undersigned counsel for further proceedings. It is submitted that applicants had no means of earning and did not know the limitation period of filing the appeal. The delay has occurred in filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act read with Section 151 of CPC is for condonation of delay of 661 days in filing the counsel for the applicants that the he present appeal has occurred on account of the fact that the applicants are poor and rustic villagers who are not acquainted with the legal intricacies of law. It is submitted that even the learned counsel for the regularly told them that their appeal is in progress. However, applicants have subsequently discovered that the appeal had not been filed. Now, the applicants have engaged the undersigned counsel for d no means of earning and did not know the limitation period of filing the appeal. The delay has occurred in TRIPTI SAINI 2026.04.22 17:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-1892-2025 (O&M) arranging litigation expenses. It is accordingly, prayed that the present application be allowed and the delay of 661 days in filing the appeal be 3. Heard. 4. The applicants have sought condonation of inordinate delay of 661 days primarily on the ground that they did not have sufficient funds; and as the learned counsel had failed to inform the applicants regarding filing up the appeal However, I find no merit in the said submissions: as despite repeated Court query, the counsel for the applicants has failed to inform as to on what date the compensation amount of Rs.15,00,000/ applicant has failed 5. Even the second contention of the applicants that they were misled by their counsel is liable to be rejected. It is for the applicants to be diligent in pursuing the appeal. Duty lies upon the appella rights to pursue litigation diligently. The appellants cannot totally sleep upon the matter after allegedly entrusting the same to their counsel. In this situation, it would be apposite to refer to Pvt. Ltd. v. M/s. Scone Exhibition Pvt. Ltd., (Delhi): Law Finder Doc Id # 887148 holding that “11. The litigant owes a duty to be vigilant of his rights and is also expected to be equally vigilant about the judicial proceedings pending in the court of law against him or initiated at his instance. The litigant cannot be permitted to cast the entire appears that the blame is being attributed on the Advocate with a view to get the delay condoned and avoid the decree. After filing the civil suit or written statement, the litigant cannot go off to sleep and wake up from a deep s is storage of the suits filed by such negligent litigants. Putting the entire blame upon the advocate and trying to make it out as if they 2025 (O&M) arranging litigation expenses. It is accordingly, prayed that the present application be allowed and the delay of 661 days in filing the appeal be Heard. The applicants have sought condonation of inordinate delay of 661 days primarily on the ground that they did not have sufficient funds; and as the learned counsel had failed to inform the applicants regarding filing up the appeal However, I find no merit in the said submissions: as despite repeated Court query, the counsel for the applicants has failed to inform as to on what date the compensation amount of Rs.15,00,000/- was released to the applicants. Thus, applicant has failed to prove that they did not have sufficient funds. Even the second contention of the applicants that they were misled by their counsel is liable to be rejected. It is for the applicants to be diligent in pursuing the appeal. Duty lies upon the appella rights to pursue litigation diligently. The appellants cannot totally sleep upon the matter after allegedly entrusting the same to their counsel. In this situation, it would be apposite to refer to judgment of the Delhi Hig Pvt. Ltd. v. M/s. Scone Exhibition Pvt. Ltd., (Delhi): Law Finder Doc Id # holding that: “11. The litigant owes a duty to be vigilant of his rights and is also expected to be equally vigilant about the judicial proceedings pending in the court of law against him or initiated at his instance. The litigant cannot be permitted to cast the entire appears that the blame is being attributed on the Advocate with a view to get the delay condoned and avoid the decree. After filing the civil suit or written statement, the litigant cannot go off to sleep and wake up from a deep slumber after passing a long time as if the court is storage of the suits filed by such negligent litigants. Putting the entire blame upon the advocate and trying to make it out as if they -2- arranging litigation expenses. It is accordingly, prayed that the present application be allowed and the delay of 661 days in filing the appeal be condoned. The applicants have sought condonation of inordinate delay of 661 days primarily on the ground that they did not have sufficient funds; and as the learned counsel had failed to inform the applicants regarding filing up the appeal However, I find no merit in the said submissions: as despite repeated Court query, the counsel for the applicants has failed to inform as to on what date the was released to the applicants. Thus, to prove that they did not have sufficient funds. Even the second contention of the applicants that they were misled by their counsel is liable to be rejected. It is for the applicants to be diligent in pursuing the appeal. Duty lies upon the appellants to be vigilant towards their rights to pursue litigation diligently. The appellants cannot totally sleep upon the matter after allegedly entrusting the same to their counsel. In this situation, it judgment of the Delhi High Court in Moddus Media Pvt. Ltd. v. M/s. Scone Exhibition Pvt. Ltd., (Delhi): Law Finder Doc Id # “11. The litigant owes a duty to be vigilant of his rights and is also expected to be equally vigilant about the judicial proceedings pending in the court of law against him or initiated at his instance. The litigant cannot be permitted to cast the entire blame on the Advocate. It appears that the blame is being attributed on the Advocate with a view to get the delay condoned and avoid the decree. After filing the civil suit or written statement, the litigant cannot go off to sleep and lumber after passing a long time as if the court is storage of the suits filed by such negligent litigants. Putting the entire blame upon the advocate and trying to make it out as if they arranging litigation expenses. It is accordingly, prayed that the present application The applicants have sought condonation of inordinate delay of 661 days primarily on the ground that they did not have sufficient funds; and as the learned counsel had failed to inform the applicants regarding filing up the appeal. However, I find no merit in the said submissions: as despite repeated Court query, the counsel for the applicants has failed to inform as to on what date the was released to the applicants. Thus, Even the second contention of the applicants that they were misled by their counsel is liable to be rejected. It is for the applicants to be diligent in nts to be vigilant towards their rights to pursue litigation diligently. The appellants cannot totally sleep upon the matter after allegedly entrusting the same to their counsel. In this situation, it Moddus Media Pvt. Ltd. v. M/s. Scone Exhibition Pvt. Ltd., (Delhi): Law Finder Doc Id # “11. The litigant owes a duty to be vigilant of his rights and is also expected to be equally vigilant about the judicial proceedings pending in the court of law against him or initiated at his instance. The litigant blame on the Advocate. It appears that the blame is being attributed on the Advocate with a view to get the delay condoned and avoid the decree. After filing the civil suit or written statement, the litigant cannot go off to sleep and lumber after passing a long time as if the court is storage of the suits filed by such negligent litigants. Putting the entire blame upon the advocate and trying to make it out as if they TRIPTI SAINI 2026.04.22 17:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-1892-2025 (O&M) were totally unaware of the nature or significance of the proceeding is a theory put forth by the appellant/applicant/defendant company, which cannot be accepted and ought not to have been accepted.” 6. Furthermore, it is cardinal principle of law that delay of each day has to be explained. In this regard, reference is Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 11794 of 2025 titled as Shivamma (Dead) by LRs Vs. Karnataka Housing Board and others, 2025 INSC 1104 decided on 12.09.2025, Law Finder Doc Id # 2777666 delay has to be explained in a mathematical manner which has not been done by the applicants. No cogent reason or plausible explanation has been furnished by the applicants for condonation of such an inordinate delay in filing the accompanying appeal. Moreover, condonation of such an inordinate delay would be tantamount to declaring the law of limitation obsolete/redundant, without any justification. 7. As such, no ground is made out for condoning inordinate delay of 661 days. Present application accordingl FAO-1892-2013 1. Present of compensation of Rs.15,00,000/ Tribunal, Rewari (hereinafter referred to as “the learned Tribunal”) dated 20.02.2023 passed in MACT Claim Petition No.516 dated 26.10.2021 filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”). The two claimants are the 45 deceased Lalit, who was about 22 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 Lalit had died due to the 2025 (O&M) were totally unaware of the nature or significance of the proceeding is a theory put forth by the appellant/applicant/defendant company, which cannot be accepted and ought not to have been accepted.” Furthermore, it is cardinal principle of law that delay of each day has to be explained. In this regard, reference is made to judgment of the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 11794 of 2025 titled as Shivamma (Dead) by LRs Vs. Karnataka Housing Board and others, 2025 INSC 1104 decided on 12.09.2025, Law Finder Doc Id # 2777666, wherein it is held that each day’s elay has to be explained in a mathematical manner which has not been done by the applicants. No cogent reason or plausible explanation has been furnished by the applicants for condonation of such an inordinate delay in filing the accompanying ver, condonation of such an inordinate delay would be tantamount to declaring the law of limitation obsolete/redundant, without any justification. As such, no ground is made out for condoning inordinate delay of 661 days. Present application accordingly stands dismissed 2013 Present appeal has been filed by the claimants seeking enhancement of compensation of Rs.15,00,000/- awarded by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Rewari (hereinafter referred to as “the learned Tribunal”) dated 20.02.2023 passed in MACT Claim Petition No.516 dated 26.10.2021 filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”). The two claimants are the 45-year-old mother and 49 Lalit, who was about 22 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 Lalit had died due to the -3- were totally unaware of the nature or significance of the proceeding is a theory put forth by the appellant/applicant/defendant company, which cannot be accepted and ought not to have been accepted.” Furthermore, it is cardinal principle of law that delay of each day has made to judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 11794 of 2025 titled as Shivamma (Dead) by LRs Vs. Karnataka Housing Board and others, 2025 INSC 1104 decided on , wherein it is held that each day’s elay has to be explained in a mathematical manner which has not been done by the applicants. No cogent reason or plausible explanation has been furnished by the applicants for condonation of such an inordinate delay in filing the accompanying ver, condonation of such an inordinate delay would be tantamount to declaring the law of limitation obsolete/redundant, without any justification. As such, no ground is made out for condoning inordinate delay of 661 dismissed. appeal has been filed by the claimants seeking enhancement awarded by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Rewari (hereinafter referred to as “the learned Tribunal”) vide Award dated 20.02.2023 passed in MACT Claim Petition No.516 dated 26.10.2021 filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”). old mother and 49-year-old father of the Lalit, who was about 22 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 Lalit had died due to the injuries suffered by him in a were totally unaware of the nature or significance of the proceedings is a theory put forth by the appellant/applicant/defendant company, Furthermore, it is cardinal principle of law that delay of each day has Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 11794 of 2025 titled as Shivamma (Dead) by LRs Vs. Karnataka Housing Board and others, 2025 INSC 1104 decided on , wherein it is held that each day’s elay has to be explained in a mathematical manner which has not been done by the applicants. No cogent reason or plausible explanation has been furnished by the applicants for condonation of such an inordinate delay in filing the accompanying ver, condonation of such an inordinate delay would be tantamount to As such, no ground is made out for condoning inordinate delay of 661 appeal has been filed by the claimants seeking enhancement awarded by the learned Motor Accident Claims vide Award dated 20.02.2023 passed in MACT Claim Petition No.516 dated 26.10.2021 filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”). old father of the 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 injuries suffered by him in a TRIPTI SAINI 2026.04.22 17:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-1892-2025 (O&M) motor vehicular accident that took place on 08.09.2021 at 8:00 PM due to rash and negligence driving of a Car bearing registration No. HR offending vehicle’) being driven by respondent No.1, owned by and insured by responding No.3. In holding as above, the learned Tribunal has primarily relied on the evidence of eyewitness Om Parkash/PW1/claimant No.2/father of the deceased. The above compensation has been awarded along with interest at the rate of 7% per annum. The liability to pay said compensation was held to be jointly and severely. 3. Ld. counsel for the appellants seeks enhancement of compensation by submitting that income of the deceased has been taken on the lower side. Moreover, the Tribunal has not awarded anything by way of consortium; and amounts granted under conventional heads are on the lower side. Even interest should have been @18% per annum. It is accordingly prayed that the present appeal be allowed and the impugned 4. No other argument is raised on behalf of ld. counsel for the appellants. 5. 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. 6. A perus appellants before the learned Tribunal that the deceased was working at M/s Dev Enterprises and was earning bald statement made by claimant No. appearing as PW said contention. No documentary evidence whatsoever was produced by the appellant to substantiate their above contention. Accordingly had assessed income of the deceased as Rs.9,700/ Minimum Wages. 2025 (O&M) motor vehicular accident that took place on 08.09.2021 at 8:00 PM due to rash and negligence driving of a Car bearing registration No. HR offending vehicle’) being driven by respondent No.1, owned by and insured by responding No.3. In holding as above, the learned Tribunal has primarily relied on the evidence of eyewitness Om Parkash/PW1/claimant No.2/father of the deceased. The above compensation has been awarded along with at the rate of 7% per annum. The liability to pay said compensation was held to be jointly and severely. Ld. counsel for the appellants seeks enhancement of compensation by submitting that income of the deceased has been taken on the lower side. ver, the Tribunal has not awarded anything by way of consortium; and amounts granted under conventional heads are on the lower side. Even interest should have been @18% per annum. It is accordingly prayed that the present appeal be allowed and the impugned Award be modified. 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 it was the pleaded case of the appellants before the learned Tribunal that the deceased was working at M/s Dev Enterprises and was earning ₹12,500/- per month. However, except for the oral and bald statement made by claimant No.2 Om Parkash/father of the deceased, while appearing as PW-1, no other evidence was led by the appellants to support their said contention. No documentary evidence whatsoever was produced by the appellant to substantiate their above contention. Accordingly had assessed income of the deceased as Rs.9,700/ Minimum Wages. -4- motor vehicular accident that took place on 08.09.2021 at 8:00 PM due to rash and negligence driving of a Car bearing registration No. HR-28C-3078 (hereinafter ‘the offending vehicle’) being driven by respondent No.1, owned by respondent No.2 and insured by responding No.3. In holding as above, the learned Tribunal has primarily relied on the evidence of eyewitness Om Parkash/PW1/claimant No.2/father of the deceased. The above compensation has been awarded along with at the rate of 7% per annum. The liability to pay said compensation was Ld. counsel for the appellants seeks enhancement of compensation by submitting that income of the deceased has been taken on the lower side. ver, the Tribunal has not awarded anything by way of consortium; and amounts granted under conventional heads are on the lower side. Even interest should have been @18% per annum. It is accordingly prayed that the present Award be modified. 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. al of the record shows that it was the pleaded case of the appellants before the learned Tribunal that the deceased was working at M/s Dev per month. However, except for the oral and 2 Om Parkash/father of the deceased, while 1, no other evidence was led by the appellants to support their said contention. No documentary evidence whatsoever was produced by the appellant to substantiate their above contention. Accordingly, the learned Tribunal had assessed income of the deceased as Rs.9,700/- per month as per the relevant motor vehicular accident that took place on 08.09.2021 at 8:00 PM due to rash and 3078 (hereinafter ‘the respondent No.2 and insured by responding No.3. In holding as above, the learned Tribunal has primarily relied on the evidence of eyewitness Om Parkash/PW1/claimant No.2/father of the deceased. The above compensation has been awarded along with at the rate of 7% per annum. The liability to pay said compensation was Ld. counsel for the appellants seeks enhancement of compensation by submitting that income of the deceased has been taken on the lower side. ver, the Tribunal has not awarded anything by way of consortium; and amounts granted under conventional heads are on the lower side. Even interest should have been @18% per annum. It is accordingly prayed that the present 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 al of the record shows that it was the pleaded case of the appellants before the learned Tribunal that the deceased was working at M/s Dev per month. However, except for the oral and 2 Om Parkash/father of the deceased, while 1, no other evidence was led by the appellants to support their said contention. No documentary evidence whatsoever was produced by the , the learned Tribunal per month as per the relevant TRIPTI SAINI 2026.04.22 17:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-1892-2025 (O&M) 7. Further, age of deceased was determined to be 22 years at the time of accident on the basis of his Driving Licence Ex.P10, wherein hi mentioned as 18.10.1999.05.2001. Accordingly, Tribunal had correctly made an addition of 40% towards future prospects; and correctly applied multiplier of 18. 8. As the deceased was a Bachelor, Tribunal had correctly made a deduction of 50% towards personal expenses. Further under the conventional heads, Tribunal has awarded an amount of Rs.15,000/ funeral expenses; Rs.15,000/ miscellaneous expenses; thereby aw as follows: - Sr. No. Heads 1. Income 2. 40% future prospects 3. 50% deducted as personal expenses of the deceased 4. Compensation after applying multiplier of 18 5. Transportation and funeral expenses 6. Loss of estate 7. Miscellaneous 8. Total 9. No doubt the learned Tribunal has awarded nothing by way of consortium to the appellants. However, it is my view that in the facts of and circumstances of the case, appellants are not entitled to enhancement of compensation. 10. In this regard, it is nec accident in question, an FIR No.131, dated 09.09.2021, under Sections 279 and 304-A IPC has been registered at Police Station 2025 (O&M) Further, age of deceased was determined to be 22 years at the time of accident on the basis of his Driving Licence Ex.P10, wherein hi mentioned as 18.10.1999.05.2001. Accordingly, Tribunal had correctly made an addition of 40% towards future prospects; and correctly applied multiplier of 18. As the deceased was a Bachelor, Tribunal had correctly made a of 50% towards personal expenses. Further under the conventional heads, Tribunal has awarded an amount of Rs.15,000/ funeral expenses; Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate; and Rs.3,360/ miscellaneous expenses; thereby awarding total compensation of Rs.15,00,000/ Heads Calculation (in Rs.) Income Rs.9,700 x 12 = Rs.1,16,400/ annum 40% future prospects Rs.46,560/ 50% deducted as personal expenses of the deceased Rs.1,16,400/ Rs.1,62,960/ comes to Rs.81,480/ Compensation after applying multiplier of 18 Rs.81,480 x 18 = Rs.14,66,640/ Transportation and funeral expenses Rs.15,000/ Loss of estate Rs.15,000/ Miscellaneous expenses Rs.3,360/ Total Rs.15,00,000/ No doubt the learned Tribunal has awarded nothing by way of consortium to the appellants. However, it is my view that in the facts of and circumstances of the case, appellants are not entitled to enhancement of In this regard, it is necessary to point out that in respect of the accident in question, an FIR No.131, dated 09.09.2021, under Sections 279 and A IPC has been registered at Police Station -5- Further, age of deceased was determined to be 22 years at the time of accident on the basis of his Driving Licence Ex.P10, wherein his date of birth was mentioned as 18.10.1999.05.2001. Accordingly, Tribunal had correctly made an addition of 40% towards future prospects; and correctly applied multiplier of 18. As the deceased was a Bachelor, Tribunal had correctly made a of 50% towards personal expenses. Further under the conventional heads, Tribunal has awarded an amount of Rs.15,000/- towards transportation and towards loss of estate; and Rs.3,360/- towards arding total compensation of Rs.15,00,000/ Calculation (in Rs.) Rs.9,700 x 12 = Rs.1,16,400/- per annum Rs.46,560/- Rs.1,16,400/- + Rs.46,560/- = Rs.1,62,960/- after deduction 50% comes to Rs.81,480/- Rs.81,480 x 18 = Rs.14,66,640/- Rs.15,000/- Rs.15,000/- Rs.3,360/- Rs.15,00,000/- No doubt the learned Tribunal has awarded nothing by way of consortium to the appellants. However, it is my view that in the facts of and circumstances of the case, appellants are not entitled to enhancement of essary to point out that in respect of the accident in question, an FIR No.131, dated 09.09.2021, under Sections 279 and A IPC has been registered at Police Station Sadar Rewari on the basis of Further, age of deceased was determined to be 22 years at the time of s date of birth was mentioned as 18.10.1999.05.2001. Accordingly, Tribunal had correctly made an addition of 40% towards future prospects; and correctly applied multiplier of 18. As the deceased was a Bachelor, Tribunal had correctly made a of 50% towards personal expenses. Further under the conventional towards transportation and towards arding total compensation of Rs.15,00,000/-, per = after deduction 50% No doubt the learned Tribunal has awarded nothing by way of consortium to the appellants. However, it is my view that in the facts of and circumstances of the case, appellants are not entitled to enhancement of essary to point out that in respect of the accident in question, an FIR No.131, dated 09.09.2021, under Sections 279 and on the basis of TRIPTI SAINI 2026.04.22 17:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-1892-2025 (O&M) statement made by eye the abovesaid FIR respondent No.1 has been acquitted by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Rewari vide judgment dated 03.04.2024. The relevant findings of the learned JMIC in the said judgment are as follows: “5. In order to pro examined only four witnesses. PW1 Om Parkash made a statement that the accused present before the Court is not the person who had driven the offending vehicle in rash and negligent manner and caused accident t nephew Lalit. PW3 Rahul Khan have deposed that he does not know the accused present before the Court. All the prosecution witnesses were declared hostile and on request of learned APP for State they have been cross evidence against accused 11. A bare reading of the above facts shows that before the learned JMIC, the claimant side has turned turtle on its previous statement made before the Tribunal. Compensation of appellants on the specific and direct statement made by alleged eyewitness Om Prakash before the Tribunal that the accident in question had been caused due to the rash and negligent driving However, in complete contrast of the above stand, before the learned JMIC, Om Prakash has turned hostile and refused to identify respondent no.1. No doubt, proceedings under the Act have to be decided on the pre probabilities. However, this Court cannot shut its eyes in an ostrich like manner the starkly diametrically opposite stance taken by the claimants' side in the criminal trial. Thus, no credence can be attributed to the by the claimants that the claimant side has deposed 2025 (O&M) statement made by eye-witness claimant No.2 the abovesaid FIR respondent No.1 has been acquitted by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Rewari vide judgment dated 03.04.2024. The relevant findings of the learned JMIC in the said judgment are as follows: “5. In order to prove allegations against accused prosecution has examined only four witnesses. PW1 Om Parkash made a statement that the accused present before the Court is not the person who had driven the offending vehicle in rash and negligent manner and caused accident to his son. PW2 Hari Om had identified dead body of his nephew Lalit. PW3 Rahul Khan have deposed that he does not know the accused present before the Court. All the prosecution witnesses were declared hostile and on request of learned APP for State they have been cross-examined but nothing incriminating came in their evidence against accused.” A bare reading of the above facts shows that before the learned JMIC, the claimant side has turned turtle on its previous statement made before the Compensation of ₹15 lakhs has been awarded by the Tribunal to the appellants on the specific and direct statement made by alleged eyewitness Om Prakash before the Tribunal that the accident in question had been caused due to the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by respondent No.1. However, in complete contrast of the above stand, before the learned JMIC, Om Prakash has turned hostile and refused to identify respondent no.1. No doubt, proceedings under the Act have to be decided on the pre probabilities. However, this Court cannot shut its eyes in an ostrich like manner diametrically opposite stance taken by the claimants' side in the Thus, no credence can be attributed to the the claimants before the learned Tribunal. From the above noted facts, it is clear that the claimant side has deposed falsely before the Tribunal only with a view to -6- witness claimant No.2 – Om Parkash PW-1. However, in the abovesaid FIR respondent No.1 has been acquitted by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Rewari vide judgment dated 03.04.2024. The relevant findings of the learned JMIC in the said judgment are as follows:- ve allegations against accused prosecution has examined only four witnesses. PW1 Om Parkash made a statement that the accused present before the Court is not the person who had driven the offending vehicle in rash and negligent manner and caused o his son. PW2 Hari Om had identified dead body of his nephew Lalit. PW3 Rahul Khan have deposed that he does not know the accused present before the Court. All the prosecution witnesses were declared hostile and on request of learned APP for State they examined but nothing incriminating came in their A bare reading of the above facts shows that before the learned JMIC, the claimant side has turned turtle on its previous statement made before the ₹15 lakhs has been awarded by the Tribunal to the appellants on the specific and direct statement made by alleged eyewitness Om Prakash before the Tribunal that the accident in question had been caused due to of the offending vehicle by respondent No.1. However, in complete contrast of the above stand, before the learned JMIC, Om Prakash has turned hostile and refused to identify respondent no.1. No doubt, proceedings under the Act have to be decided on the preponderance of probabilities. However, this Court cannot shut its eyes in an ostrich like manner diametrically opposite stance taken by the claimants' side in the Thus, no credence can be attributed to the contrary statements made From the above noted facts, it is clear before the Tribunal only with a view to 1. However, in the abovesaid FIR respondent No.1 has been acquitted by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Rewari vide judgment dated 03.04.2024. The relevant ve allegations against accused prosecution has examined only four witnesses. PW1 Om Parkash made a statement that the accused present before the Court is not the person who had driven the offending vehicle in rash and negligent manner and caused o his son. PW2 Hari Om had identified dead body of his nephew Lalit. PW3 Rahul Khan have deposed that he does not know the accused present before the Court. All the prosecution witnesses were declared hostile and on request of learned APP for State they examined but nothing incriminating came in their A bare reading of the above facts shows that before the learned JMIC, the claimant side has turned turtle on its previous statement made before the ₹15 lakhs has been awarded by the Tribunal to the appellants on the specific and direct statement made by alleged eyewitness Om Prakash before the Tribunal that the accident in question had been caused due to of the offending vehicle by respondent No.1. However, in complete contrast of the above stand, before the learned JMIC, Om Prakash has turned hostile and refused to identify respondent no.1. No doubt, ponderance of probabilities. However, this Court cannot shut its eyes in an ostrich like manner to diametrically opposite stance taken by the claimants' side in the made From the above noted facts, it is clear before the Tribunal only with a view to TRIPTI SAINI 2026.04.22 17:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-1892-2025 (O&M) get the compensation. to perjury. 12. I am supported in my view by a judgment of this Court in 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 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 suc also liable for perjury.” 13. This Court in abovesaid judgment in Company Limited Vs. Kamla Devi & Others” 251230 has held "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 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 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 Moh the version given before the criminal court or looked for other 2025 (O&M) get the compensation. It is my view that the said act of the claimant side amounts 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 judgme 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 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 is also liable for perjury.” This Court in abovesaid judgment in Company Limited Vs. Kamla Devi & Others” has held that: "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 binding on the Tribunal; the non-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 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 -7- It is my view that the said act of the claimant side amounts I am supported in my view by 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 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 h witness and held that the said witness is This Court in abovesaid judgment in “United India Insurance Company Limited Vs. Kamla Devi & Others” (P&H) : Law Finder Doc Id # "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 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 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 d. cannot be relied for he has contradicted himself wholesale with the version given before the criminal court or looked for other It is my view that the said act of the claimant side amounts “Shri Ram 2231- nt rendered by this United India Insurance Company Limited wherein it was specifically held that in case an eye witness gives totally different 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 h witness and held that the said witness is “United India Insurance (P&H) : Law Finder Doc Id # "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 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 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 d. cannot be relied for he has contradicted himself wholesale with the version given before the criminal court or looked for other TRIPTI SAINI 2026.04.22 17:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-1892-2025 (O&M) evidence which was placed before the Court. Alternatively if any explanation had been given by the witness as to why he depos 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 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 such statement before the made before the criminal cour 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 version elicited 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 doing something which is not a judicial function but a travesty of justice.” 14. Learned counsel for the appellants is unable to dispute or controvert the aforesaid facts and findings. Def compensation. 15. Thus, the present Appeal is accordingly as on grounds of delay. 16. Pending application(s), if any, also stand(s) disposed of. April 21, 2026 tripti Whether speaking/non Whether reportable 2025 (O&M) evidence which was placed before the Court. Alternatively if any explanation had been given by the witness as to why he depos 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 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 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 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 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 doing something which is not a judicial function but a travesty of justice.” Learned counsel for the appellants is unable to dispute or controvert the aforesaid facts and findings. Definitely, no case is made out for enhancement of Thus, the present Appeal is accordingly as on grounds of delay. Pending application(s), if any, also stand(s) disposed of. Whether speaking/non-speaking : Speaking Whether reportable : Yes/No -8- evidence which was placed before the Court. Alternatively if any explanation had been given by the witness as to why he depos 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 t 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 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 doing something which is not a judicial function but a travesty of justice.” Learned counsel for the appellants is unable to dispute or controvert initely, no case is made out for enhancement of Thus, the present Appeal is accordingly dismissed on merits, as well Pending application(s), if any, also stand(s) disposed of. (NIDHI GUPTA) JUDGE speaking : Speaking : Yes/No 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 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 t 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 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 doing something which is not a judicial function but a travesty of justice.” Learned counsel for the appellants is unable to dispute or controvert initely, no case is made out for enhancement of on merits, as well TRIPTI SAINI 2026.04.22 17:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document