Krishan Kumar Vs Mandeep Kaur — Motor Accident Claims | Punjab & Haryana HC (2026)

Krishan Kumar Vs Mandeep Kaur — Motor Accident Claims | Punjab & Haryana HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

No relief to the appellant; appeal dismissed, leaving the Tribunal's findings (Award dated 13.07.2017) undisturbed.

Issue for consideration

Whether the Tribunal correctly found, on Issue No.1, that the appellant (owner-cum-driver of the offending vehicle) was guilty of rash and negligent driving which led to the motor vehicular accident causing the death of Baldev Singh. +1 more

Court's answer

Given the FIR (Exhibit C-1), the eyewitness account proved through CW-2/Gurtej Singh, the police report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. and the framing of charges, the Court treated the negligence issue as no more res integra and declined the appellant's attempt to dispute the investigation-based material.

Ratio / Principle

Relying on the dictum of law laid down by the Supreme Court — as set out in this Court's earlier observations in FAO-7156-2019 (O&M) & FAO-40-2025 (Dulcina Fernandes; ICICI Lombard v. Rajani Sahoo; Mangla Ram) — the Court applied the position that reliance on police records (FIR, final report/chargesheet) is permissible and that negligence in a motor accident claim is to be judged on the touchstone of preponderance of probabilities, not proof beyond reasonable doubt, sustaining the Tribunal's holistic assessment on Issue No.1.

Key takeaways

The Court found no reason to interfere with the well reasoned findings recorded by the Tribunal.ratio¶39
Finding no merit in the present appeal, the Court ordered it to be dismissed.ratio¶40
All pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, stand disposed of.obiter¶42

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Motor Vehicles Act — Claim under S.166 — Rash and negligent driving — FAO-1231-2018 (O&M), High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh, decided 27.01.2026 (Pankaj Jain, J.). Krishan Kumar, owner-cum-driver of the offending vehicle, appealed against the Award dated 13.07.2017 of the MACT, Sri Muktsar Sahib, challenging only the Tribunal's finding on Issue No.1 that his rash and negligent driving caused the accident killing Baldev Singh; his sole ground was absence from the spot coupled with the claimant's failure to examine any eyewitness. The Court noted that FIR Exhibit C-1 was registered qua the accident and its contents proved through CW-2/Gurtej Singh's eyewitness account; that following investigation a report under S.173 Cr.P.C. was filed and charges framed against the appellant, who faced trial — the point being 'no more res integra'. Adopting its earlier observations in FAO-7156-2019 (O&M) & FAO-40-2025, which rest on the Supreme Court dicta in Dulcina Fernandes v. Joaquim Xavier Cruz (2013) 10 SCC 646 and ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Rajani Sahoo 2025(2) SCC 599 (and the quoted para 27 of Mangla Ram v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. (2018) 5 SCC 656), the Court applied the principle that police records may be looked at and negligence assessed on preponderance of probabilities rather than proof beyond reasonable doubt. Finding the Tribunal's view holistic and well reasoned, the Court declined to interfere and dismissed the appeal; pending miscellaneous applications were disposed of.

1

FAO-1231-2018 (O&M)

[245] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

FAO-12 3 1-2018 (O&M) Date of D ecision : 27.01.2026

Krishan K umar …Appellant

versus

Mandeep Kaur ….Respondent

Coram : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ JAIN

Present: Ms. Kamaldeep Kaur, Advo c ate for Mr. G.S. Kaura, Advoca t e for the appellant.

Mr. Rupinder Singh Jhand, A dvocate for the respondent. ****

PANKAJ JAIN, J. (ORAL)

[1] The owner-cum-driver of t h e offending vehicle is in appeal, aggrieve d of Award dated 13.07.2017 pa s sed by the Motor Accident Cla i ms Tribunal, Sri Muktsar Sahib on a claim p etition filed under Section 16 6 of

the Moto r Vehicles Act.

[2] Challenge is to the findings recorded by the Tribunal on I s sue No.1, w h ereby the appellant has been he l d to be guilty of rash and negli g ent driving, w hich led to a motor vehicular accident causing death of Bal d ev Singh.

[3] The sole ground pleaded is t h at the appellant was not presen t on the spot. The claimant failed to exami n e any of the eye witnesses. T he Tribunal should not have held the a p pellant responsible for rash a nd negligent driving.

[4] From the record, it is discer n ible that the FIR (Exhibit C-1) w as registere d qua the accident. The content s thereof were proved by exami n ing

RAJNEESH SHARMA 2026.01.30 16:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

2

FAO-1231-2018 (O&M)

CW-2/G u rtej Singh. He spelled out ey e witness account. The appella n t is not in a position to dispute that, after i nvestigation, police filed a re p ort under Se c tion 173 Cr.P.C., which led t o framing of charges against the appellant . The appellant faced trial qua a c cident in question. The issu e is no more r es integra. This Court had a n occasion to deal with the issu e in FAO-7156-2019 (O&M) & FAO-40-202 5 . Relying on dictum of law l aid down by S upreme Court, this Court obse r ved as under:-

“11. The observations appe a r to be in teeth of law laid dow n by Supreme Court in the case of Dulcina Fernandes v. Joaquim Xavier Cruz (2013) 10 SCC 646 . Rei t erating the ratio of law laid dow n by Supreme Court in the case o f Dulcina Fernandes ibid , Supr e me Court in ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Rajani Sahoo reported as 2025(2) SCC 599 , observed as under:-

“xx xx xx

7. The core conte n tion of the appellant is that the Tribunal as also the H igh Court relied on the fraudulent chargesheet prepared b y the respondents in connivance w ith the police. In short, the contention of the appellant is that the High Court erred in re l ying on the chargesheet to arriv e at the conclusion that t h e accident in question in w h ich Udayanath Sahoo lost h is life had occurred due to the r ash and negligent driving o f the truck insured with the appell a nt. Though respondent No s .1 and 2 did not file any cou n ter affidavit, the learned counsel appearing for them w o uld submit that there is abs o lutely no illegality in relying on such documents consisting o f FIR and the final report prepare d in relation to the accide n t in question by the police, for the purpose of considering t he question of negligence in a m o tor vehicle accident case. That apart, it is contended that the appellant despite attributing connivance of the respond e nts with the police, the ap p ellant failed to prove the same . In short, it is submitted that the appeal is devoid of merit an d the same is liable to be dis m issed.

RAJNEESH SHARMA 2026.01.30 16:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

3

FAO-1231-2018 (O&M)

8. As regards the r eliability of charge sheet and o t her documents collected by the police during the investigatio n in motor accident cases, this Court in the case of Mangla Ra m v. Oriental Insurance C o . Ltd. [Mangla Ram v. Orie n tal Insurance Co. Ltd., (20 1 8) 5 SCC 656 : (2018) 3 SCC ( C iv) 335 : (2018) 2 SCC (Cr i ) 819 : 2018 INSC 311], held in p ara No.27, thus : (SCC p.67 2 )

“27. Another r e ason which weighed with the H igh Court to inter fe re in the first appeal filed by Respondents 2 & 3, was absence of finding by the Tribunal about the factum of negligence of the driv e r of the subject jeep. F actually, this view is untenable. O ur understanding o f the analysis done by the Tribun a l is to hold that Jeep No. RST 4701 was driven rashly and negligently by R e spondent 2 when it collided with the motorcycle of th e appellant leading to the acci d ent. This can be disc e rned from the evidence of witne s ses and the contents o f the charge-sheet filed by the po l ice, naming Respond e nt 2. This Court in a recent deci s ion in Dulcina Fern a ndes [Dulcina Fernandes v. Joaquim Xavier Cruz, (20 1 3) 10 SCC 646 : (2014) 1 SCC ( C iv) 73 : (2014) 1 S C C (Cri) 13], noted that the ke y of negligence on th e part of the driver of the offen d ing vehicle as set up by the claimants was required t o be decided by th e Tribunal on the touchstone of preponderance of probability and certainly not by standard of proo f beyond reasonable doubt. Suffi c e it to observe that t h e exposition in the judgments alr e ady adverted to by us, filing of charge-sheet against Respondent 2 pri m a facie points towards his compl i city in driving the ve h icle negligently and rashly. Furt h er, even when the a ccused were to be acquitted in the criminal case, th i s Court opined that the same ma y be of no effect on t h e assessment of the liability requ i red in respect of mo t or accident cases by the Tribun a l”. (Emphasis Supplied)

RAJNEESH SHARMA 2026.01.30 16:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

4

FAO-1231-2018 (O&M)

9. It is true that the Tribunal had looked into the oral and documentary evidence including the FIR, final report a nd such other documents p repared by the police in connec t ion with the accident in q u estion. The Tribunal had also t a ken note of the fact that bas e d on the final report, the driver o f the offending truck was t r ied and found guilty for rash a nd negligent driving. The H igh Court took note of such asp e cts and found no illegalit y in the procedure adopted by the Tribunal and consequen t ly dismissed the appeal. 10. In the contextua l situation it is relevant to refer t o a decision of this Court i n Mathew Alexander v. Mohd. S h afi [Mathew Alexander v. Mohd. Shafi, (2023) 13 SCC 5 1 0 : 2023 INSC 621], this C o urt held thus : (SCC p. 514, para 1 2) “12….A holistic view o f the evidence has to be taken i nto consideration by the Tr i bunal and strict proof of an acci d ent caused by a particular vehicle in a particular manner n eed not be established by t h e claimants. The claimants hav e to establish their case on the touchstone of preponderanc e of probabilities. The stand a rd of proof beyond reasonable d o ubt cannot be applied wh i le considering the petition see k ing compensation on accou n t of death or injury in a road tr a ffic accident. To the same ef fect is the observation made by this Court in Dulcina Ferna n des v. Joaquim Xavier Cruz [Dul c ina Fernandes v. Joaquim Xavier Cruz (2013) 10 SCC 6 4 6 : (2014) 1 SCC (Civ) 73 : (2014) 1 SCC (Cri) 13] which has referred to the aforesai d judgment in Bimla Devi [Bimla D evi v. Himachal RTC, (200 9 ) 13 SCC 530 : (2009) 5 SCC ( C iv) 189 : (2010) 1 SCC (Cri ) 1101].”

11. Thus, there can be no dispute with respect to the position that the ques t ion regarding negligence whic h is essential for passing a n award in a motor vehicle acci d ent claim should be consid e red based on the evidence avail a ble before the Tribunal. If t h e police records are available be f ore the Tribunal, taking not e of the purpose of the Act it cannot be said that looking into such documents for the afore s aid

RAJNEESH SHARMA 2026.01.30 16:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

5

FAO-1231-2018 (O&M)

purpose is impermissibl e or inadmissible. 12. It is also a f act that the appellant h a d attributed that the respon d ent claimants connived wit h police and fraudulently prepared the chargesheet. The conte n tion is that the vehicle insured w ith the appellant was no t involved in the accident and the accident had occurred s olely due to the rash and neglig e nce on the part of the decea s ed. But the evidence on record w o uld reveal that pursuant to the filing of the final re p ort, cognizance was taken f or rash and negligent driving w h ich resulted in the death of U dayanath Sahoo.”

12. Applying the aforesaid parameters to the present case, this Court finds that Tribunal ha s rightly taken a holistic view of the matter in hand taking into c onsideration the entire evidence on record. Taking note of the pol i ce records available on record b e ing permissible to return finding on the basis of preponderanc e of probabilities, the Tribunal has rightly returned finding on issue N o.1 against the offending vehicle and in favour of the claimants. The same � deserves to be maintai n ed. ”

[5] In view thereof, this Court fi nds no reason to interfere with the

well reas o ned findings recorded by the T r ibunal. [6] Finding no merits in the pre s ent appeal. The same is ordere d to

be dismissed.

[7] All pending miscellaneou s application(s), if any, st a nds disposed o ff .

(PANKAJ JAIN)

JUDGE

27.01.20 2 6

‘R. Sharma'

Whether speaking/ reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No

RAJNEESH SHARMA 2026.01.30 16:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document