Dismissed¶¶39

Mangal Singh and Another v. Karnail Kaur and Another

Motor Accident Claims – Additional witness

Himachal Pradesh HC8 Jul 2026CMPMO/176/2026

Download

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

CMPMO No. 176/2026, High Court of Himachal Pradesh (Shimla), decided 08.07.2026, Romesh Verma, J. — Mangal Singh & anr. v. Karnail Kaur & anr.; Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Nalagarh; Section 151 CPC permission to examine additional witness in claim petition under Section 163 Motor Vehicles Act; petition under Article 227 of the Constitution; no prejudice where cross-examination opportunity retained; onus on claimants; Motor Vehicles Act beneficial/welfare legislation, liberal interpretation; petition dismissed.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order passed by the learned Tribunal does not suffer from any illegality or infirmity. ¶¶38

Mangal Singh and Another Vs Karnail Kaur and… — Motor Accident Claims | Himachal Pradesh HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶¶39

Issue for consideration

Whether the impugned order dated 20.12.2025 of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Nalagarh, allowing the claimants to examine an additional witness under Section 151 CPC, is erroneous and liable to be quashed under Article 227 of the Constitution, or is free from illegality or infirmity.

¶¶24

Court's answer

The impugned order passed by the learned Tribunal does not suffer from any illegality or infirmity.

¶¶38

Ratio / Principle

Onus to prove the case lies on the claimants/respondents and must be discharged by them; merely allowing the application will not prove their case. Since the petitioners shall get an opportunity to cross-examine the additional witness, no prejudice has been caused to the petitioners by allowing the application.

¶¶33

Key takeaways

As per the exposition of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the Motor Vehicles Act is a beneficial and welfare legislation and has to be interpreted liberally, supporting the claimants' move to prove their case through an additional witness.ratio¶¶34

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Motor Accident Claims — Additional witness — Permission under S.151 CPC. Claimants (Karnail Kaur & anr.), whose claim petition under S.163 of the Motor Vehicles Act for compensation for the death of their son (accident of 13.11.2019 on Nalagarh-Bharatgarh road) was pending before MACT Nalagarh, were permitted by the Tribunal (order dt. 20.12.2025) to examine an additional eye-witness, Raju s/o Mani Ram, discovered during the evidence stage. The owner and driver (Mangal Singh & anr.) challenged the order by a petition under Art. 227 of the Constitution alleging belatedness and improvisation. Held (Romesh Verma, J.): onus to prove the case remains on the claimants and allowing the application does not prove their case; the petitioners retain the opportunity to cross-examine the additional witness, hence no prejudice is caused; further, the Motor Vehicles Act being a beneficial and welfare legislation is to be interpreted liberally. The impugned order suffers from no illegality or infirmity and the petition is dismissed, all expressions of opinion having no bearing on the merits of the claim.

¶1

2026:HHC:28529

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA

¶3

CMPMO No. 176/2026 Decided on: 08.07.2026

¶4

Mangal Singh & anr. …..Petitioners Versus Karnail Kaur & anr. …Respondents ______________________________________________________________

¶5

Coram:

¶6

The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Romesh Verma, Judge.

¶7

Whether approved for reporting?¹

¶8

For the Petitioners: Mr. Anand Sharma, Advocate.

¶9

For the Respondents: Mr. P. S. Goverdhan, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Rakesh Thakur, Advocate.

¶10

Romesh Verma, Judge (oral)

¶11

The instant petition arises out of order, dated 20.12.2025, as passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Nalagarh, District Solan, H.P., whereby an application filed by the claimants/respondents under Section 151 CPC seeking permission to examine the additional evidence/witness in the claim petition came to be allowed.

¶12

2 The facts, as emerge in the instant case, are that the respondents/claimants has filed claim petition under Section 163 of the Motor Vehicles Act, before the learned Tribunal for

¶13

1Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes.

¶14

¶15

grant of compensation on account of death of their son, late Sh. Bhajan Lal.

¶16

3 It is admitted by the learned counsel for the parties that after framing of issues, the case was fixed for evidence of the claimants/respondents. During the pendency of the claim petition and at the stage of leading evidence on behalf of the claimants/respondents, they filed an application under Section 151 of CPC seeking permission of the Court to examine the additional witness in the claim petition.

¶17

4 As per averments, as made in the application, the claimants/respondents earlier submitted a list of witnesses to be examined as PWs and their evidence has not yet closed. During the pendency of claim petition, it revealed to the claimants/respondents that one Raju, son of Mani Ram was coming behind the offending Truck towards Nalagarh when the accident in question took place on Nalagarh-Bharatgarh road at about 10.30 P.M. on 13.11.2019.

¶18

5 It is the case of the claimants/respondents that earlier the aforesaid witness was not in their knowledge, who according to them, is an eye witness of the accident. He had seen the accident at the relevant time and as such his examination is necessary for adjudication of the claim petition,

¶19

¶20

therefore, no prejudice shall be caused to the respondents by examining the said witness.

¶21

6 The said application filed under Section 151 of CPC came to be resisted by the present petitioners on various grounds by filing reply, wherein it was stated that the application is an afterthought to fill up lacunae in the claim petition. The claimants/respondents cannot be permitted to improvise their case in violation of right of natural justice. Therefore, dismissal of the application was sought.

¶22

7 Learned Tribunal vide its order, dated 20.12.2025 allowed the application as filed by the claimants/respondents.

¶23

8 Feeling dissatisfied by the order, dated 20.12.2025, the petitioners being owner and driver of the vehicle, alleged to have been involved in the accident, have approached this Court by filing instant petition under article 227 of the Constitution of India.

¶24

9 It is contended by Mr. Anand Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioners that the impugned order, as passed by the learned Tribunal, is erroneous and, thus, liable to be quashed and set aside. He has submitted that the application, which was filed by the claimants/respondents, was highly belated and the same could not have been allowed in a routine manner by the learned Tribunal. He has further submitted that

¶25

¶26

after accepting the instant petition, the application, as filed by the claimants/respondents, deserves to be rejected.

¶27

10 On the other hand, Mr. P. S. Goverdhan, learned Senior Advocate, duly assisted by Mr. Rakesh Thakur, Advocate, appearing for the claimants/respondents has defended the impugned order. He has submitted that no prejudice has been caused to the petitioners/opposite side as only permission has been granted to the claimants/respondents to examine additional witness and an opportunity shall be granted to the petitioners to cross-examine the said witness, therefore, the impugned order is liable to be upheld by this Court.

¶28

11 I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the material available on record.

¶29

12 Admittedly, the respondents/claimants has filed claim petition under Section 163 of the Motor Vehicles Act before the learned Tribunal for grant of compensation on account of death of their son. During the pendency of the claim petition, an application under Section 151 of CPC came to be filed by the claimants/respondents seeking permission of the Court to examine the additional witness, namely, Raju. As per averments, as made in the application, said Raju was the eye-witness of the accident in question and the said fact was not in their knowledge

¶30

¶31

at the time of filing of list of witnesses and commencement of their evidence.

¶32

13 It is contended by the learned senior counsel for the claimants/respondents that by merely allowing the application will not amount to proving the case as set up by the claimants/respondents. Even after allowing the application, only permission has been granted to the claimants/respondents to examine Raju as witness and thereafter, the petitioners shall get an opportunity to cross-examine him.

¶33

14 Admittedly, onus to prove the case lies on the claimants/respondents, therefore, onus has to be discharged by the claimants and by merely allowing the application will not prove their case. Therefore, as rightly held by the learned Tribunal, the petitioners shall be getting an opportunity to crossexamine the said witness, therefore, no prejudice has been caused to the petitioners by allowing the application.

¶34

15 As per exposition of law, as laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the Motor Vehicles Act is a beneficial and welfare legislation and it has to be interpreted liberally.

¶35

16 The claimants/respondents intend to prove their case by examining Raju as an additional witness. This Court is conscious of the fact that the claimants/respondents have lost their son and intend to prove their case, therefore, the Court

¶36

¶37

cannot shut its eyes by ignoring and denying the said fact, as alleged by the claimants/respondents.

¶38

17 This Court is of the considered opinion that the impugned order as passed by the learned Tribunal does not suffer from any illegality or infirmity.

¶39

18 Consequently, the instant petition being devoid of any merit deserves to be dismissed. Ordered accordingly. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. 19 Any expression of opinion, hereinabove, shall have no bearing on the merits of the case and shall be deemed to have been made only for the purpose of disposal of instant petition.

¶40

08^th July, 2026

¶41

(Romesh Verma) Judge

¶42

(pankaj)

Mangal Singh and Another v. Karnail Kaur and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mangal Singh and Another v. Karnail Kaur and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

NHAI Vs Parmanand

Union of India Vs Ms Rs Construction

NHAI Vs Maya Devi

The Highway Administrator and Project Director Piu Mandi Vs Prakash and Ors.

State of Hp Vs Anil Kumar Sachdeva and Another

The Highway Administrator and Project Director Piu Mandi Vs Ashok Kumar and Ors.