(O&M) Sarwan Singh Vs the New India Assurance Company Ltd. and Others

These two appeals have been filed by the claimants against the common award dated 03.04.1995 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, whereby both claim pe..ons filed under Sec.on 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act were dismissed.

¶17

The accident in ques.on occurred on 28.05.1991 within the

¶18

SARITA RANI 2026.01.29 16:25 I attest to the accuracy of this document/order

¶19

FAO-2092-1996 & FAO-2206-1996 [2]

¶20

revenue limits of village Shambhu Khurd on the Ambala–Rajpura road. In the said accident, Gurmail Singh sustained injuries, and tractor No. PB-11-B5431 was damaged.

¶21

Gurmail Singh filed a claim pe..on seeking compensa.on for the injuries suffered by him, whereas his father Sarwan Singh filed a separate claim pe..on seeking compensa.on for damage caused to the tractor. In both the pe..ons, the driver, owner and insurer of the alleged offending vehicle, i.e. tanker truck No. UP-20-5990, were impleaded as respondents. In the claim pe..on filed by Sarwan Singh, the insurer of the tractor was also impleaded.

¶22

In the claim pe..on filed by Gurmail Singh, it was pleaded that on 28.05.1991 at about 4.00 p.m., he was traveling from Ambala towards Rajpura while driving tractor No. PB-11-B-5431. On reaching near village Shambhu, the tanker truck bearing registra.on No. UP-20-5990, driven by respondent No.2 in a rash and negligent manner by coming on the wrong side of the road, struck against the tractor-trolley, resul.ng in Gurmail Singh sustaining mul.ple injuries, including a fracture above the knee of his leD leg. Damage to the tractor was also alleged, and compensa.on to the tune of ₹2,00,000/- was claimed.

¶23

The said claim was contested by the driver and owner of the tanker truck by pleading that the accident had occurred due to the negligence of Gurmail Singh himself, who, while aGemp.ng to save a cyclist, lost control of the tractor and rammed it into the sta.onary tanker truck, which was parked on the kacha por.on of the road. The Insurance Company also adopted the same defence and further pleaded that the driver of the tractor was not holding a valid driving licence.

¶24

In the separate claim pe..on filed by Sarwan Singh, it was

¶25

SARITA RANI 2026.01.29 16:25 I attest to the accuracy of this document/order

¶26

FAO-2092-1996 & FAO-2206-1996 [3]

¶27

pleaded that he was the owner of the tractor and trolley, which were insured, and that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the tanker truck. Significantly, in this pe..on, Sarwan Singh did not plead as to who was driving the tractor at the .me of the accident.

¶28

Though separate issues were ini.ally framed in the two claim pe..ons, the maGers were later consolidated and tried together. Upon apprecia.on of the evidence led by the par.es, the Tribunal dismissed both claim pe..ons by a common award.

¶29

The principal conten.on raised by learned counsel for the appellants is that the evidence on record has not been properly appreciated and that the Tribunal has erred in dismissing the claim pe..ons.

¶30

Having carefully examined the record and the reasoning adopted by the Tribunal, this Court does not find any merit in the appeals. 10. The Tribunal no.ced a fundamental and fatal inconsistency in the case of the claimants regarding the most crucial aspect, namely, who was driving the tractor at the .me of the accident. In the claim pe..on filed by Gurmail Singh, as well as in FIR No.75 dated 29.05.1991 lodged at Police Sta.on Rajpura on his statement, Gurmail Singh categorically admiGed that he himself was driving the tractor at the relevant .me. This admission is unequivocal and forms part of the pleadings as well as contemporaneous criminal record.

¶31

Despite this clear stand, Gurmail Singh did not step into the witness box to depose about the manner of the accident or to establish negligence on the part of the tanker driver. This omission assumes significance, as in a claim pe..on under Sec.on 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, the burden squarely lies on the claimant to establish rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle.

¶32

SARITA RANI 2026.01.29 16:25 I attest to the accuracy of this document/order

¶33

FAO-2092-1996 & FAO-2206-1996 [4]

¶34

The claimants instead examined Gurmit Singh as AW-3. However, the Tribunal found, on a careful reading of his tes.mony, that he was not an eyewitness to the accident. He nowhere stated that he was driving the tractor. On the contrary, his statement reinforced the posi.on that Gurmail Singh himself was driving the tractor. The Tribunal also rightly no.ced that though it was men.oned in the FIR that Balbir Singh and Gurmit Singh were also traveling on the tractor, none of them sustained any injuries, rendering their alleged presence highly doubLul.

¶35

The Tribunal further no.ced a clear aGempt on the part of Sarwan Singh to shiD his stand. In his affidavit Ex.R-1, Sarwan Singh claimed that Gurmit Singh son of Gurbax Singh was driving the tractor and, on that basis, he lodged a claim with the Insurance Company. However, the driving licence produced in the name of Gurmit Singh was found to be forged upon verifica.on from the Licensing Authority, leading to repudia.on of the insurance claim. This conduct further eroded the credibility of the claimants’ version.

¶36

On the other hand, the defence version that Gurmail Singh himself caused the accident while aGemp.ng to save a cyclist and rammed the tractor into a sta.onary tanker parked on the kacha por.on of the road remained plausible and unrebuGed. The Tribunal rightly held that once Gurmail Singh admiGed himself to be the driver and failed to prove that he held a valid driving licence, and further failed to enter the witness box to establish negligence of the tanker driver, the claim could not succeed.

¶37

It is well seGled that mere proof of injuries or damage is not sufficient to grant compensa.on under Sec.on 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act unless negligence of the offending vehicle is established. The Tribunal has correctly applied this principle. The finding that Gurmail Singh himself

¶38

SARITA RANI 2026.01.29 16:25 I attest to the accuracy of this document/order

¶39

FAO-2092-1996 & FAO-2206-1996 [5]

¶40

was the author of the accident and that negligence on the part of the tanker driver was not proved, is a pure finding of fact based on apprecia.on of evidence.

¶41

The reasoning adopted by the Tribunal is neither perverse nor based on misreading of evidence. Rather, it reflects a careful scru.ny of admissions, pleadings, and contradic.ons in the claimants’ case. This Court finds no legal infirmity in the conclusion that the appellants failed to discharge the ini.al burden of proof.

¶42

Accordingly, the dismissal of both claim pe..ons is legally jus.fied. There is no ground for interference in appeal.

¶43

The appeals are devoid of merit and are accordingly dismissed. Photocopy of this order be placed on the connected case file.

¶44

29.01.2026		(DEEPAK GUPTA)
Yogesh		JUDGE
	Whether speaking/reasoned:-	Yes/No
	Whether reportable:-	Yes/No

¶45

Uploaded on: 29.01.2026

¶46

SARITA RANI 2026.01.29 16:25 I attest to the accuracy of this document/order

(O&M) Sarwan Singh v. the New India Assurance Company Ltd. and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

(O&M) Sarwan Singh v. the New India Assurance Company Ltd. and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Savitri Devi Vs Daulat Ram and Others

Dev Raj Vs Pala Ram and Others

Gurdeep Singh Vs Nachhattar Singh

Krishan Kumar Vs the State of Haryana and Others

Rajinder Singh Vs Iqbal Singh

Piara Singh (Gram Sewak) Now Deceased through Lr Vs Local Gurudwara Parbandhak Committee and Others