Dismissed¶36

Pritam Kaur v. Abey Singh and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC25 Jul 2025FAO/2248/2001

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

FAO No.2248 of 2001 (O&M), High Court of Punjab and Haryana (Nidhi Gupta J.), decided 25.07.2025 – Pritam Kaur v. Abey Singh Nahar; enhancement of MACT Fatehgarh Sahib Award dt.15.11.2000 refused; Section 166 MV Act claim dismissed for failure to prove rash/negligent driving; Rs.50,000 under Sections 140/141 ('No Fault Liability') upheld; FIR No.254 dt.07.8.1996, PS Gangrar, Distt. Chittorgarh, Sections 279/304-A IPC, held unproved (no investigating officer examined); burden of proving negligence on claimant; deceased Ranjit Singh; offending vehicle Trolla No.HR-26-A-4621; appeal dismissed.

What did the court decide?

The FIR (Ex.P-1), though tendered in evidence, was not proved in accordance with law as no investigating officer or other connected person was examined to prove it. ¶33

Pritam Kaur Vs Abey Singh and Ors. — Motor Accident Claims | Punjab & Haryana HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶36

Issue for consideration

Whether the impugned Award dated 15.11.2000 should be modified and the compensation awarded to the appellant enhanced. +1 more

¶25

Court's answer

No error in the learned Tribunal's dismissal of the claim petition; the Rs.50,000/- 'No Fault Liability' award is more than fair and just; no ground is made out to interfere with the impugned Award.

¶34

Ratio / Principle

The FIR (Ex.P-1), though tendered in evidence, was not proved in accordance with law as no investigating officer or other connected person was examined to prove it.

¶33

Key takeaways

There is nothing on record to indicate that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of respondent No.2; the burden lay upon the appellant to lead evidence of fault and, in the absence of any such evidence, it cannot be held that the accident occurred due to negligence of respondent No.2.ratio¶33

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Motor accident claim – enhancement refused. Mother of deceased Ranjit Singh (killed on 07.8.1996 when he fell from Trolla No.HR-26-A-4621 and was crushed; vehicle driven by respondent No.2, owned by respondent No.1, insured by respondent No.3) appealed against the Award dated 15.11.2000 of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Fatehgarh Sahib, by which her claim under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act was dismissed for want of proof of rash/negligent driving, with Rs.50,000/- granted under Sections 140/141 as 'No Fault Liability'. HELD (Nidhi Gupta J., oral): (i) FIR No.254 dated 07.8.1996 (Ex.P-1) under Sections 279/304-A IPC, PS Gangrar, District Chittorgarh, though tendered, was not proved in accordance with law as no investigating officer or connected person was examined; (ii) there is nothing on record to show rash or negligent driving by respondent No.2 – the burden lay on the appellant and was not discharged; (iii) the Tribunal's dismissal involved no error and the no-fault award of Rs.50,000/- is 'more than fair and just'. Appeal dismissed; pending applications disposed of.

¶1

FAO-2248-2001 (O & M)

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

204

¶5

FAO No.2248 of 2001 (O & M) Date of decision :-25.07.2025

Pritam Kaur

…..Appellant

Versus

Abey Singh Nahar and others

¶10

…..Respondents

¶11

CORAM:- HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA

¶12

Present:Mr. Jaskamal Singh Grewal, Advocate for the appellant.

¶13

Mr. D.P. Gupta, Advocate for respondent No.3-Insuran c e Company.

¶14

NIDHI GUPTA J. (Oral)

¶15

The present appeal has been filed by the sole claimant/ m other of the deceased seekin g modification of the Award dated 15.11.2000 passed by the learn e d Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Fatehgarh Sahib (hereinaft e r ‘the learned Tribunal’) whereby, although claim petition filed b y the appellant under Section 166 of t h e Motor Vehicles Act (hereina f ter referred to as ‘the Act’) stood dis m issed, yet, compensation of R s.50,000/- has been awarded to the ap p ellant under ‘No Fault Liabili t y’ under Section 140 of the Act.

¶16

Brief facts of the case, as pl e aded by the appellant, in the claim petition are that on 07.8.1996 the d eceased-Ranjit Singh/son of the appel l ant was going from Punjab to Gujrat in the Trolla No.HR-

¶17

VIJAY ASIJA 2025.07.25 20.20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶18

¶19

FAO-2248-2001 (O & M)

¶20

26-A-46 2 1 (hereinafter referred to as ‘t h e offending vehicle’), which was bein g driven by respondent No.2; o w ned by respondent No.1; and insured b y respondent No.3. It was the c ase of the appellant that the offendin g vehicle was being driven by r e spondent No.2 in a rash and negligent manner, because of which the offending vehicle had gone out of co n trol of respondent No.2 and R anjit Singh had fallen down and had b een crushed under the offendin g vehicle and died at the spot. The learned Tribunal, on the basis of pleadings and evidence adduced before it, had concl u ded that the appellant was unable to prove any rash and negligent d riving on part of respondent No.2; an d hence the claim petition cam e to be dismissed. However, the app e llant was awarded Rs.50,00 0 /- as compensation under Sections 140 and 141 of the Act under ‘No Fault Liability’. Hence, the prese n t appeal. Aggrieved of the sa m e, the appellant is seeking enhance m ent of the compensation so aw a rded to the appellant.

¶21

It is inter alia submitted b y learned counsel for the appellant that the learned Tribunal was i n patent error in concluding that ther e was no rashness and negligen c e on the part of respondent No.2 as the appellant had even regis t ered an FIR No.254 dated 07.8.199 6 (Ex.P-1) under Sections 27 9 and 304-A IPC at Police Station G angrar, District Chittorgarh. L e arned counsel contends that from this very fact, it is clear that the res p ondent No.2 was driving the offendin g vehicle in a rash and negligen t manner. It is contended that from this document, it is established th a t the accident had occurred due to th e rash and negligent driving of r espondent No.2. Ex.P-1 was not rebu t ted by the respondents before the learned Tribunal. It is

¶22

VIJAY ASIJA 2025.07.25 20.20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶23

¶24

FAO-2248-2001 (O & M)

¶25

accordin g ly prayed that the impugne d Award be modified and compens a tion awarded to the appellant m ay be enhanced.

¶26

Learned counsel for r espondent No.3-Insurance Compan y opposes the submissions mad e on behalf of the appellant and sub m its that it is well establishe d position in law that mere registrati o n of FIR would not imply a n y negligence on part of the driver. L e arned counsel submits that no e vidence whatsoever was led by the ap p ellant to show that there was a ny fault of respondent No.2. It is acc o rdingly prayed that the impu g ned Award does not suffer from any infirmity; and the present appe a l may be dismissed.

¶27

No other argument is made o n behalf of the appellant.

¶28

I have heard learned couns e l for the parties and perused the case f ile. I find no merit whatsoever in the submissions made on behalf of the appellant.

¶29

The accident had taken p l ace in Rajasthan. The FIR (Ex.P-1) was also registered in Rajasth a n. As per the appellant, the deceased was travelling in the off e nding vehicle as second driver/cl e aner. Although, it has been pleaded on behalf of the appellant that the accident had taken place due to the rash and negligent driving of respondent No.2, h o wever, perusal of the entire record reveals that there is not one w h it of evidence on record to remotely indicate any rashness or neglige n ce on the part of respondent No.2. T h e appellant had adduced n o evidence whatsoever to substanti a te her said claim. The appella n t had only produced PW1 to PW3 to p rove the alleged income of the deceased. No doubt, the FIR (Ex.P-1) was tendered in evidence. Ho w ever, as per the impugned

¶30

VIJAY ASIJA 2025.07.25 20.20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶31

¶32

FAO-2248-2001 (O & M)

¶33

Award, e v en the same was not proved a s per law as no investigating officer o r any other connected person w as examined to prove the same. T h us, there is nothing on record to indicate that the accident had take n place due to rash and negligen t driving of respondent No.2. Needless to say, the burden was upon the appellant to lead some evidence to show that the accident had occurred due to the fault of responde n t No.2. In the absence of an y evidence to this effect, it cannot b e held that the accident in ques t ion had occurred due to any negligen c e on part of respondent No.2.

¶34

In this view of the matter, I find no error in dismissal of the clai m petition by the learned Tri b unal. In fact, awarding of Rs.50,00 0 /- to the appellant under the ‘ No Fault Liability’ is more than fair a nd just in the facts and circums t ances of the case.

¶35

As such no ground is m a de out to interfere in the impugne d Award.

¶36

In view of the above, the present appeal is dismissed. Pending application(s), if an y also stand(s) disposed of.

¶37

July 25, 2 025 ( NIDHI GUPTA ) Vijay Asija JUDGE

¶38

Whether sp e aking/reasoned Yes / No Whether Re p ortable Yes / No

¶39

VIJAY ASIJA 2025.07.25 20.20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Pritam Kaur v. Abey Singh and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pritam Kaur v. Abey Singh and Ors.

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

Madan Mohan Singh (Dead) through His L.R. Anita Salaria Vs Gian Singh & Ors.

Teekam (Since Deceased) through His Lrs and Another Vs Mehar Chand Saini and Others

Jaswinder Singh Vs Sh Kamal Kishor Yadav IAS and Others

Maghar Singh and Ors. Vs Mahla Singh and Anr.

Sdo (Op) Sub Division, Uhbvnl Indri District Karnal Vs Hisam Singh

Rajinder Singh Vs Gurinder Singh