Dismissed

Deepa Rani and Ors. v. Gurvinder Singh and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC26 Feb 2026FAO/1541/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Single Judge dismissed the appeal filed by heirs of a deceased motor accident victim against the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal's award rejecting negligence. The court supported the Tribunal's finding that claimants failed to prove rash driving despite an FIR, noting eyewitness contradictions, and rejected the conversion prayer under Section 163-A.

What did the court decide?

PE. No. 1541/2025 was dismissed; pending applications disposed with; compensation not awarded.

Deepa Rani and Ors. Vs Gurvinder Singh and Ors. — Medical Negligence | Punjab & Haryana HC (2026)

¶1

FAO-1541-2025 -1-

¶2

IN THE HI G H COURT OF PUNJAB AND H ARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶3

134 FA O -1541-2025

¶4

Dat e of Decision:26.02.2026

¶5

Deepa Ra n i and other

¶6

.…Appellants

¶7

Versus

¶8

Gurvinder Singh and another ....Respondents

¶9

CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA

¶10

Present: - Mr. Archit Garg, Advocate fo r Mr. Shantanu Bansal, Advoc a te for the appellants.

¶11

NIDHI GUPTA, J.

¶12

Present appeal has been fil e d by the appellant-claimants against the dismissal of their claim petitio n bearing MACP Case No. 205 dated 19.0 4 .2017filed under Sections 166 and 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as ‘th e Act’), by the learned Motor Accident C laims Tribunal, Kurukshetra ( fo r short ‘the learned Tribunal’) vide impu g ned Award dated 19.11.2024. T he 05 claimants are the: i) 43year-old w idow; ii) 18-year-old daughte r ; iii) 16-year-old son; and iv) parents of deceased-Anil Kumar who w a s 41 years old at the time of accident. T he present appeal has been fil e d by claimants No. 1 to 3 i.e. widow an d minor children; whereas parents of the deceased are impleaded as profor m a respondents No. 2 and 3 herei n . 2. It was the pleaded case of t h e claimants that deceased had died due t o the injuries suffered by him in a motor vehicular accident that took place on10.1.2017 at 7:10 AM due t o rash and negligent driving of

¶13

RISHU KATARIA 2026.03.05 10:32 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment.

¶14

FAO-1541-2025 -2-

¶15

Car XUV M ahindra bearing registration N o . HR-06-AA-0080 (hereinafter ‘the offen d ing vehicle’) which is owned a n d driven by respondent No. 1- Gurvinder Singh. However, upon apprai s al of pleadings and evidence adduced b e fore it, the learned Tribunal h ad concluded that accident in question h a d not taken place due to rash a nd negligent driving of vehicle bearing re g istration No. HR-06-AA-0080 b eing driven by the respondent.

¶16

It is , inter alia, submitted by learned counsel for the appellant t hat the learned Tribunal was in error in holding that the accident i n question had not taken place d u e to rash and negligent driving of the offe n ding vehicle by respondent N o . 1. Moreover, the ld. Tribunal has failed t o appreciate that the bare peru s al of Section 163-A of the Act would sho w that the same is a special pro v ision as, it is so detailed in the heading o f the Section inasmuch as, it is stated that Section is a special provision r elating to the payment of com p ensation on structured formula basis. The said provision opens with a non obstante clause and encumbers a liability upon the owner of the vehicle or the authorized insurer to become li a ble to pay, compensation to the aggrieved, in the case of death or perman e nt disability owing to an accid e nt arising out of the “use of the vehicle”, i n the manner detailed in the sec o nd schedule to the victim or to legal heirs of the deceased/victim. It is su b mitted that expression “arising out of the use of motor vehicle” , as us e d therein, are naturally to be assigned a meaning, that “the mere user of the vehicle”, irrespective of attribution of faulty or attribution of n e gligence to the driver of the offending v ehicle. From the expressions, t h at the attribution of fault to the

¶17

RISHU KATARIA 2026.03.05 10:32 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment.

¶18

FAO-1541-2025 -3-

¶19

driver of t h e offending vehicle is neithe r required to be pleaded nor is required to be established.

¶20

It is further submitted that i n dismissing the claim petition, the learne d Tribunal has failed to take in t o account the legislative intent and spirit o f the Act and the provisions t hereof. It is argued that it is a beneficial legislation and the provisions thereof are to be interpreted liberally. Learned counsel submits th a t the Courts have allowed amendme n ts of petition under Section 1 66 by incorporating relevant provisions of Section 163-A of the Act. H owever, the learned Tribunal has failed to give due weightage to the p rinciple of just compensation. The factu m of death of Anil Kumar is not disputed. As such, the Tribunal was well w ithin its jurisdiction to exerci s e its discretion to convert the claim petition under Section 166 to a peti t ion under Section 163A of the Act, keepi n g in mind the intent of the Ac t . Accordingly, learned counsel for the appellant prays for setting aside of t he impugned Award. 5. No other argument is raised on behalf of the appellants. I have hear d learned counsel and perused t h e case file in detail. I find no merit in th e submissions advanced by lear n ed counsel for appellants. 6. Although ld. Counsel for t he appellants has raised no arguments on the merits of the matter, ho w ever, it bears mention that the pleaded c a se of the claimants before the l earned Tribunal as recorded in para-No. 2 of the impugned Award, is as f o llows: -

¶21

“2. Brief facts of the c laimants's case is that on 10.01.2017 at about 7.10 A.M. deceased Anil Kumar alongwith Ravi Bhushan Pa n dey and Amarjeet Singh were waiting for a conveyance ne a r Bus stand Ambala, to go to

¶22

RISHU KATARIA 2026.03.05 10:32 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment.

¶23

FAO-1541-2025

¶24

-4-

¶25

Panipat. In the meantime, t he offending vehicle bearing No.HR-06-AA-0080, which was being driven by the respondent, reached there. Anil Kumar, Ravi Bhushan Pandey and Amarjeet Singh a s ked for a lift. All three of them boarded the offending ve h icle. The offending driver (respondent) started driving t he offending vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and wi t hout observing the traffic rules. The passengers asked the off e nding driver to be careful and not to be negligent and rash. However, the offending driver kept on driving the offending vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and when the offen d ing vehicle had just crossed Saha Fly over, it went out o f control and turned turtle and due to fast speed, the o ff ending vehicle crossed the intersection and hit an eich e r canter, that was parked in kacha portion on the other side of the road. All the passengers received serious, grievous and multiple injuries on their vital parts. All of t hem were rushed to General Hospital, where the doctors declared Anil Kumar brought dead and Shiv Kumar and A marjeet were referred to PGI MER Chandigarh. The accid e nt took place solely due to rash and negligent driving of the r e spondent.

¶26

At the time of death, d e ceased Anil Kumar was of the age of 41 years and he w a s Area Sales Manager, with Laborate Pharmaceuticals I n dia Ltd. having its registered office at E-11, Industrial Ar e a Panipat. The deceased was having annual income of Rs.five lacs. He was income tax payee. A criminal case bea r ing FIR No.20 was registered with police Station Shahabad against the offending driver for the commission of offences p unishable under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 304-A of th e Indian Penal Code. All the claimants were dependent up o n him. They had spent Rs. two lacs on the funeral and last ri t es of the deceased.”

¶27

RISHU KATARIA 2026.03.05 10:32 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment.

¶28

FAO-1541-2025 -5-

¶29

Pursuant to the accident, an F I R No. 20dated 10.01.2017 was registered under Sections 279,337, 338 and 304-A IPC and Sections 39/192(1), 146/196 IPC at Police Statio n Sahahabad, on the basis of statement o f eye-witness Shiv Kumar S/o S hri Amar Singh, who had also received i n juries in the accident in quest i on. However, it is to be noted that in the criminal proceedings emanatin g from the said FIR no.20 dated 10.1.2017, Shiv Kumar had suffered a sta t ement Ex. R-3 wherein he has categorica l ly testified that the accident had not taken place due to rash and negligent d riving of respondent No. 1. An o ther eyewitness, namely, Ravi Bhushan P andey had also made a simil a r statement before the learned Criminal C ourt that the accident in qu e stion had taken place due to bursting of tyres and not due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by respondent No. 1. Even as per the Mechanical Report (E x . P-6), it is reported that the a ccident in question had taken place due t o sudden bursting of front tyre s as well as one of the rear tyre was dama g ed. Resultantly, in view of the above said statements made by the compl a inant, Shiv Kumar and other e y ewitnesses to the accident, the responden t No. 1 was acquitted in FIR N o. 20 dated 10.01.2017 by the learned S u b Divisional Judicial Magistra t e, Shahabad vide judgment of acquittal d ated 16.04.2018. It has been c ategorically noted in the said judgment t hat Shiv Kumar and Ravi B h ushan Pandey, had failed to identify th e accused person and had, the r efore, falsified the prosecution and were accordingly declared hostile.

¶30

However, before the learne d Tribunal, the claimants have sought to p rove their claim by examining HC Devender Singh as PW-2,

¶31

RISHU KATARIA 2026.03.05 10:32 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment.

¶32

-6-

¶33

FAO-1541-2025

¶34

who had p ointed out the above acquittal o f respondent No. 1. However, ld. Tribun a l has rejected the claim of the appellants taking into account not just th e aforestated statements of the e yewitnesses to the accident in question, b ut also the Mechanical Repo r t (Ex. P-6). Accordingly, the learned T r ibunal keeping in view the e ntirety of the said facts had concluded as follows:-

¶35

“16. A perusal of copy o f mechanical report of the offending vehicle would pro v e that both the front tyres as well as one of the rear tyre w ere damaged and both the eye witnesses of the accident in dispute had also categorically testified at criminal trial that the accident in dispute was not caused due to rash and negl i gent driving of the respondent and the accident in question t ook place due to sudden burst of the tyres.

¶36

17. This court is of the considered view that the negligence of the offending d river was to be proved by the claimants by leading cog e nt and clinching evidence. However, they have miserabl y failed to discharge their onus. On the other hand, the respo n dent has fairly discharged his onus of proving that the acci d ent in question was not caused due to his rash and neglig e nt, act by placing on record certified copies of statemen t of both the eye witnesses in criminal trial and also b y relying upon copy of the mechanical report. It is subm i tted that the mechanical report has been relied upon by the claimants themselves. Mere registration of FIR is of n o consequences in the Motor Accident Claims Petitions and the negligence of the offending driver has to be proved by the claimants by leading cogent and clinching evidenc e , which in this case, claimants have miserably failed to prov e .”

¶37

RISHU KATARIA 2026.03.05 10:32 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment.

¶38

FAO-1541-2025 -7-

¶39

Admittedly, Shiv Kumar has not been produced as witness before the learned Tribunal by the clai m ants for the reasons known to them. Thu s , I find no ground is made to i n terfere in the findings returned by the lear n ed Tribunal in the Impugned A w ard. I find support in my view from a ju d gment of this Court in “United India Insurance Company Limited Vs. Kamla Devi & Others” ( P&H): Law Finder Doc Id # 251230 w h erein it has been held that:

¶40

"5. It should still have been possible for the Tribunal to take a decision uninfluen c ed by any decision that may have come before the crimin a l court. The several decisions which have come about on th i s issue are to the effect that a judgment in a criminal court i s not binding on the Tribunal; the non-filing of a FIR is n ot material; even the fact of involvement of the vehicle as f ound by the criminal court is not binding. While the Tribu n al is competent to assess the evidence which is brought be f ore it and take an independent decision, then the point that h as to be seen is whether there was any evidence worth its name before the Tribunal to come a finding that the part i cular vehicle was involved in the accident. It can be either t hat the version of Sitar Mohd. cannot be relied for he has c ontradicted himself wholesale with the version given befor e the criminal court or looked for other evidence which w as placed before the Court. Alternatively if any explan a tion had been given by the witness as to why he depose d falsehood before the criminal court, even such an explanati o n could have been accepted to enter a finding that the acci d ent took place only involving the particular insured's vehic l e. In this case, no explanation has been given by the witness as to why he stated before the criminal court that he did not know which vehicle was involved in the accident. He w ould, on the other hand, defy

¶41

RISHU KATARIA 2026.03.05 10:32 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment.

¶42

FAO-1541-2025 -8-

¶43

that he ever made any such statement before the criminal court, necessitating the state m ent made before the criminal court to be exhibited for con t radiction before the Tribunal. It must be remembered a stat e ment in criminal court case by a witness is also on oath. If he was uttering falsehood, he was liable for perjury. If th e re was contradiction between the version elicited before t h e Tribunal to the statement made before the criminal co u rt then such a witness will be unworthy of acceptance. Th e Tribunal could have simply rejected the whole evidence. I f it was going to pick out one line from chief examination t o say that the insured's vehicle was involved in the accid e nt, the Tribunal was doing something which is not a jud i cial function but a travesty of justice."”

¶44

The above said view has b een reiterated by this Court in “Shri Ram General Insurance Company Limited Vs. Jeeto Devi & Others” FAO-2231-2014 decided on 03.12.2019, wherein it is held as

¶45

under:-

¶46

“(6) This Court cannot loose s i ght of the judgment rendered by this Court in the case of United India Insurance Company Limited versus Kamla Devi and others, wherein it was s pecifically held that in case an eye witness gives totally different version before the Co u rt conducting trial in criminal case from the statement made b y the said eye witness before the Tribunal, the testimony of s uch a witness is unworthy of being accepted and the evidenc e should be simply rejected. In f act, the learned Single Bench came down heavily on such witness and held that the sa i d witness is also liable for p erjury.”

¶47

RISHU KATARIA 2026.03.05 10:32 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment.

¶48

FAO-1541-2025 -9-

¶49

As regards argument of the a p pellant regarding conversion of claim peti t ion filed under section 166 o f the Act, to a petition under Section 163-A of the Act, the said praye r is also liable to be rejected in view of t h e judgment of a Division Be n ch judgment of this Court in Himachal Road Transport Corporation and another vs. Baldev Kumar Nayyer and others, Law Finder Doc Id # 120930, wherein while refe r ring to a judgment of the Hon’ b le Supreme Court prayer of the appellant f or conversion has been rejecte d . Relevant para Nos. 3 and 4, reads as u n der:-

¶50

“3. On the last date of he a ring, counsel for the appellant had placed reliance on the ju d gment of Apex Court in Deepal Girish Bhai Soni and others v. United India Insurance

¶51

Company Ltd., 2004(2) RCR (Civil) 466 : (2004-2) 137 P.L.R. 271 (S.C.) to contend that in view of the claim of the claimants themselves that the income of the deceased/injured was more then Rs.40,000/- p e r annum, the Tribunal was not justified in treating the petitions to be petitions under Section 163A of the Act and awardi n g compensation without going into the question of neglige n ce. Counsel for the claimantrespondents had sought ti m e to go through the said judgment. He has not bee n able to refer to any other subsequent judgment of the S u preme Court taking a contrary view.

¶52

4. In this view of the m a tter, we are satisfied that the impugned award dated 6.11. 2 003 cannot be sustained. The Tribunal could not have tr e ated the petitions filed under Section 166 of the Act as peti t ions under Section 163A of the Act by restricting the inco m e of Rs.40,000/-. This issue stands settled by the Apex C ourt in Deepal Girish’s case (supra). Accordingly, we set a side the impugned award dated

¶53

RISHU KATARIA 2026.03.05 10:32 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment.

¶54

FAO-1541-2025 -10-

¶55

6.11.2003 and direct the M o tor Accident Claims Tribunal, Panchkula to decide the peti t ion filed under Section 166 o f the Act in accordance with la w .”