Dismissed¶37

Meenakshi Bhateja v. Paramjeet Kaur & Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC11 Aug 2025FAO/4406/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Punjab & Haryana High Court, FAO-4406-2016 (O&M), Justice Pankaj Jain, decided 11.08.2025 — motor accident compensation appeal against MACT Sangrur award dated 27.04.2016 for death of Manpreet Singh; negligence apportioned 40% appellant / 40% tractor owner-driver / 20% deceased; contributory negligence upheld; delivery receipt Exhibit R-1 dated 14.05.2012 held unproved (scribe and dealer not examined; mere exhibition does not dispense with formal proof); Section 5 Limitation Act condonation of 2 days' delay allowed; appeal dismissed.

What did the court decide?

The applicant/appellant made out sufficient cause for condonation; the delay of 2 days in filing the appeal is condoned and application CM-15227-CII-2016 is allowed. ¶15

Meenakshi Bhateja Vs Paramjeet Kaur… — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Punjab & Haryana HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶37

Issue for consideration

Whether, despite documentary evidence (Exhibit R-1, delivery receipt dated 14.05.2012) of sale and delivery of the car by the appellant in favour of respondent No.5, who opted not to appear leaving the evidence unrebutted, the Tribunal ought to have saddled respondent No.5 with liability instead of the appellant. +1 more

¶21

Court's answer

Mere exhibition of a document does not dispense with the formal mode of proof thereof.

¶24

Ratio / Principle

The applicant/appellant made out sufficient cause for condonation; the delay of 2 days in filing the appeal is condoned and application CM-15227-CII-2016 is allowed.

¶15

Key takeaways

The delivery receipt (Exhibit R-1) tendered to prove transfer of ownership of the car was never proved — after tendering, no effort was made to prove it; neither its scribe nor the dealer through whom the sale was effected was examined — and the Tribunal rightly ignored it.ratio¶28
In view of the facts and circumstances (deceased driving the motor-cycle rammed into the car ahead, fell down, and was crushed by the tractor coming from the opposite side driven rashly and negligently), no fault can be found with the findings recorded by the Tribunal holding the appellant to be a contributor to the accident; the plea that contributory negligence was fixed without any parameter is rejected.ratio¶36

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Motor accident death claim (Manpreet Singh) — FAO-4406-2016 (O&M), decided 11.08.2025 by Pankaj Jain, J. (oral). Appeal by Meenakshi Bhateja against the award dated 27.04.2016 of MACT, Sangrur, which had allowed the claim petition for compensation and fixed negligence at 40% each on the appellant and on the owner/driver of the tractor, and 20% on the deceased. Held: (i) mere exhibition of a document does not dispense with its formal mode of proof — the delivery receipt (Exhibit R-1, dated 14.05.2012) relied upon to show sale and delivery of the car to respondent No.5 was tendered but never proved, its scribe and the dealer effecting the sale not being examined, and the Tribunal rightly ignored it; (ii) no fault can be found with the Tribunal's findings holding the appellant a contributor to the accident. Two days' delay in filing the appeal condoned (CM-15227-CII-2016 allowed). Appeal dismissed; pending applications disposed of.

¶1

FAO-4406-2016 (O&M)

¶2

¶3

225 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

FAO-4406-2016 (O&M) Date of decision : 11.08.2025

¶5

MEENAKSHI BHATEJA ....Appellant

¶6

Versus

¶7

PARAMJIT KAUR & ORS ...Respondents

¶8

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ JAIN

¶9

Present : Mr. Sandeep Verma, Advocate for the appellant.

¶10

None for the respondents.

¶11

PANKAJ JAIN, J. (ORAL)

¶12

CM-15227-CII-2016

¶13

This is an application filed under Section 5 of Limitation Act seeking condonation of delay of 2 days in filing the instant appeal.

¶14

For the reasons recorded in the application, this Court is satisfied that the applicant/appellant has made out a sufficient cause for condonation of delay.

¶15

Consequently, the present application is allowed. The delay of 2 days in filing the instant appeal is hereby condoned. FAO-4406-2016 (O&M)

¶16

Challenge is to the award passed by MACT, Sangrur, dated 27.04.2016 whereby claim petition filed by the claimant seeking compensation on account of death of Manpreet Singh, has been allowed.

¶17

Deepak Kumar 2025.08.18 17:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶18

FAO-4406-2016 (O&M)

¶19

¶20

As per the award, both the appellant as well as the owner and driver of the tractor have been held to be negligent to the extent of 40% each and the deceased to the extent of 20%.

¶21

Counsel for the appellant has assailed the findings recorded by the Tribunal primarily raising two grounds. Firstly, he asserts that there was a documentary evidence brought on record w.r.t. sale and delivery of the car by the appellant in favour of respondent No.5. He having opted not to appear, the evidence brought on record by the appellant remained unrebutted Tribunal ought to have saddled respondent No.5 with the liability and not the appellant. Reference is being made to Exhibit R-1 i.e. delivery receipt dated 14.05.2012.

¶22

3.1. The other argument raised is that the appellant has been held guilty of contributory negligence without following any parameter.

¶23

I have heard counsel for the appellant and have carefully gone through records of the case.

¶24

Delivery receipt relied upon by the appellant to prove transfer of ownership, was tendered in evidence as Exhibit R-1. Trite it is that mere exhibition of document does not dispense with formal mode of proof thereof. After tendering the said document in evidence, no effort was made to prove the same. Neither scribe thereof has been examined nor dealer through whom the sale was effected was examined. In view thereof, this

¶25

Deepak Kumar 2025.08.18 17:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶26

FAO-4406-2016 (O&M)

¶27

¶28

Court finds that the Tribunal rightly ignored the delivery receipt produced by the appellant.

¶29

In para 16 of the award passed by the Tribunal, the factors leading to the accident, in question, relying upon the statement made by PW-1 Chamkaur Singh, an eye-witness to the accident, have been spelled out as under:

¶30

“16. This Court considers that in the presence of statement of PW1 Chamkaur Singh eye witness and FIR Ex.CW3/A the version of counsel for the respondent no.1 namely Pritpal Singh and respondent no.3 Manpreet Singh can not b accepted in totoo. For the purpose of determining claim in motor accident cases quantum of negligence has to be determined by the Tribunal. Even if case of the claimant is taken as it is, even then it comes out that as per claimant and as it has been so proved by CW1 namely Chamkaur Singh, on 31.5.2013 at about 1.45 P.M deceased Manpreet Singh along with Jatinder Singh son of Didar Singh resident of village Kalera, were going to their village on motor cycle bearing no. PB10BP-0954 from sherpur and Chamkaur Singh also driven his motor cycle bearing registration no. PB-13Q-8373 behind the deceased, when they reached near the main gate of Himalaya Public School, Ghanauri Kalan, then one Verna car colour white registration no. DL-CAQ8600 driven by respondent no.3 suddenly and without blowing horn applied the break and motor cycle struck in the car due to sudden break and deceased Manpreet Singh and Jatinder Singh fell down on the right side of the road and in the mean time one tractor bearing No, PB- 56-6307 coming from the front side alongwith a trolley in a very high speed, in zig-a- zag manner and without applying the break and without blowing horn crossed on the head of Manpreet Singh and crushed the head of Manpreet Singh and due to this Manpreet Singh died at the spot

¶31

Deepak Kumar 2025.08.18 17:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶32

FAO-4406-2016 (O&M)

¶33

¶34

and Jatinder Singh received the injuries and post mortem was conducted in Civil Hospital Dhuri by Dr. Jagmohan Singh on next day. The above said accident occurred due to the negligence act and conduct of respondent no.1 and respondent no.3. The FIR No.20 dated 31.5.2013, under section 304-A, 279, 427 IPC Police Station Sadar, Dhuri, was registered on his statement against respondent no.1 and respondent no.3.”

¶35

From the aforesaid version, it is evident that the deceased who was driving motor-cycle rammed into car ahead of him and fell down. The car suddenly stopped in the mid of road without prior indication. After Manpreet Singh fell down on the road, he was crushed by the tractor coming from the opposite side being driven in a rash and negligent manner.

¶36

In view of aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Court finds that no fault can be found with the findings recorded by the Tribunal holding the appellant to be a contributor to the accident.

¶37

Resultantly, finding no merit in the present appeal, the same is ordered to be dismissed.

¶38

Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed off.

¶39

August 1	1, 2025	(Pankaj Jain)
Dpr		Judge
	Whether speaking/reasoned	: Yes/No
	Whether reportable	: Yes/No

¶40

Deepak Kumar 2025.08.18 17:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Meenakshi Bhateja v. Paramjeet Kaur & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Meenakshi Bhateja v. Paramjeet Kaur & 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

Mangat Singh Vs Union of India

Shinder Kaur and Ors. Vs Union of India

Pal Kaur Vs Naresh Kumar Goel

Ashwani Kumar Sharma Vs Sanjay Kumar Sharma and Others

Paramjit Kaur Vs Gurmeet Kaur and Another

Ashok Kumar Vs Neha Sharma and Others