State of Haryana Vs Digambri Devi — Punjab & Haryana HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

State of Haryana Vs Digambri Devi — Punjab & Haryana HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

Issue for consideration

Whether the accident in question took place on 26.10.1997, 9/10 kms from Jagadhri on the Jagadhri-Ambala road due to rash or negligent driving of bus No.HR-37-4420 by respondent No.1 Sareen Kumar (issue No.1 framed by the Tribunal). +1 more

Court's answer

The testimony of PW-2, the injured claimant travelling in the bus, that the accident resulted from the rash and negligent driving of respondent No.1 alone — consistent with his statement in the FIR lodged immediately after the accident — withstood detailed cross-examination, nothing being highlighted to doubt it.

Ratio / Principle

No error was found in the conclusion drawn by the learned Tribunal in deciding issue No.1 in favour of the claimants; the finding that the accident was caused by rash and negligent driving of respondent No.1 stands.

Key takeaways

Apart from a self-serving oral assertion made for the first time before the Tribunal, no material was placed by the respondents to show that the offending vehicle had suffered any mechanical issue at the time of the accident; the plea that the accident occurred due to mechanical failure (jammed right front wheel, brakes inapplicable) and was an act of God was rejected.ratio¶20
The ground of mechanical failure was taken by respondent No.1 only after the filing of the claim petition; except for self-serving oral assertions, no evidence — and in particular no mechanical report regarding jamming of the right front wheel immediately after the accident — was placed on record.ratio¶24

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

NEGLIGENCE – MOTOR ACCIDENT – APPEAL BY BUS OWNER (STATE OF HARYANA) DISMISSED. FAO-1202-2000 (Punjab & Haryana High Court, Parmod Goyal J., decision 17.11.2025): First appeal against the order dated 03.02.2000 of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ambala, holding that bus No.HR-37-4420, owned by the appellants, caused the accident of 26.10.1997, 9/10 kms from Jagadhri on the Jagadhri-Ambala road, due to rash and negligent driving of its driver (respondent No.1, Sareen Kumar). Held: (i) the injured claimant (PW-2), who was travelling in the bus, consistently attributed the accident solely to the rash and negligent driving of respondent No.1 in FIR No.281 dated 26.10.1997 lodged the same day, in the claim petition and in his deposition; his testimony withstood detailed cross-examination; (ii) respondent No.1's plea that the accident occurred due to mechanical failure (jamming of the right front wheel, brakes could not be applied) amounting to an act of God was advanced for the first time before the Tribunal, after the filing of the claim petition, was self-serving and wholly uncorroborated, with no mechanical report placed on record, and he never protested his implication in the criminal case on that ground despite facing trial; (iii) no error in the Tribunal's conclusion on issue No.1; no ground to interfere — appeal dismissed. (Paras 3–5)

-1-

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

218

FAO-1202-2000 Date of decision:17.11.2025

State of Haryan a and Others

...Appellants

versus

Smt. Digamberi Devi and Others

...Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PARMOD GOYAL

Present: Ms. G e eta Rani, AAG, Haryana.

PARMOD GOYAL, J. (ORAL)

Prese n t appeal has been preferred b y appellants i.e. respondent Nos.2, 3 and 4 before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ambala (hereinafter refe r red to as ‘ Tribunal’ ) being a g grieved by impugned order dated 03.02.200 0 vide which it was held that b us owned by appellants had caused accident d ated 26.10.1997 by rash and n e gligent driving on the part of respondent No.1. The learned Tribunal h a d framed issue regarding negligence, whi c h is reproduced as under:-

“1. Wh ether the accident in questio n took place on 26.10.1997, 9/10 km s from Jagadhri on Jagadhri - Ambala road due to rash or neglig e nt driving of bus No.HR-3 7 -4420 by respondent No.1 Saree n Kumar?OPP”

Learn e d Tribunal after considering evidence of PW2-injured witness, who w a s travelling in the bus at the ti m e of accident as well as fact that it is respo n dent No.1 who is facing tri a l for causing the accident concluded issue No.1 in favour of claimants. The evidence of respondent No.1, who appe a red as RW-1 was disbelieved as same was uncorroborated and plea was taken at the belated stage.

SUNIL CHANDER 2025.11.19 18:16 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

-2-

FAO-1202-2000

On co n sideration, I do not find any e r ror in the conclusion drawn by learned Trib u nal while deciding issue No.1 i n favour of claimants. On one hand, injured-cl a imant appeared as PW-2 and has asserted the manner of accident as was a sserted by him at the time of l o dging FIR immediately after the accident. In FIR as well as in his stateme n t before the Court, injuredclaimant i.e. P W -2 had clearly stated that acc i dent was result of rash and negligent drivin g of respondent No.1 alone. H e was put to detailed crossexamination, ho w ever, nothing from cross-exa m ination could be highlighted as to doubt his t estimony. In order to counter a ssertions made by PW-2 in FIR, claim petition as well as while appearing before the Tribunal, respondent No.1 had duly appeared and claime d that accident had occurred not on account o f rash and negligent driving b u t on account of mechanical failure as right fr ont wheel got jammed and bra k es could not be applied due to said reasons. R espondent No.1 claimed that h e was driving the vehicle at normal speed o f 50-55 k.ms. per hour and t h at the accident was not on account of his r ash and negligent driving bu t on account of mechanical failure which is an act of God and therefore he is not liable for causing the accident. Howe v er, apart from oral statement m ade for the first time before the Tribunal, n o material has been placed by r espondents to show that the offending vehicl e had suffered any mechanical i s sues at the time of accident.

It is w orth noting that FIR No.281 d ated 26.10.1997 was lodged against respond e nt No.1 on the same day. Mat t er was investigated, challan was filed agains t respondent No.1 and it is resp o ndent No.1, who faced trial for accident due to his rash and negligent drivin g . However, respondent No.1 has not made a n y complaint or protest again s t his alleged implication in criminal case on the ground of mechanical failur e of the bus. It was only after SUNIL CHANDER 2025.11.19 18:16 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

FAO-1202-2000

-3-

filing of claim p etition respondent No.1 has t aken ground of mechanical failure. Howeve r except for self-serving oral as s ertions, no evidence was led by respondents to show that bus had suffered mechanical failure as no mechanical rep o rt immediately after accident regarding jamming of right front wheel has b een placed on record.

The learned Tribunal has, therefore, r ightly accepted the evidence of PW-2-injure d /eye witness who had narrated t he manner of occurrence on the day of accid e nt itself as against evidence o f RW1-respondent No.1, who had narrated th e self-serving story before the T ribunal without there being any corroboratio n to the facts stated by him. No g round to interfere in present appeal is made out. Appeal is accordingly dismi s sed.

(PARMOD GOYAL) JUDGE 17.11.2025 Sunil Chander Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No

SUNIL CHANDER 2025.11.19 18:16 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document