Harpal Singh Vs Krishan Kumar and Ors.

The present appeal has been instituted against the Award dated 13.12.2004 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Karnal ( for short “Tribunal” ), vide which MACT Case No.26 of 2001, filed by the appellant/claimant for grant of compensation on account of injuries suffered by him in a motor vehicular accident allegedly on account of rash and negligent driving on the part of respondent No.1 while driving offending Truck No.HR05GA-0159, was dismissed.

¶15

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through

¶16

PRIYANKA THAKUR 2026.07.10 17:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶17

FAO-2247-2005 - 2 -

¶18

the material placed on record.

¶19

Case of the claimant is that on 03.01.2001, he had parked his crane near Meerut Road Chowk, Karnal at about 5:30 pm after finishing his work and was going towards the roadside tea stall while walking on the kachha portion of the road. However, in the meanwhile, the offending truck bearing registration No.HR-05GA-0159 being driven by respondent No.1 in a rash and negligent manner and at a high speed came from the side of Karnal city. The road was quite slippery due to rain but due to high speed of the vehicle, respondent No.1 lost control over the truck and struck against him resulting in injuries to him. He was brought to Haryana Nursing Home, Karnal, where he was given first aid treatment. He had suffered grievous injuries and is not able to do any work. Earlier, he used to drive a crane and earn Rs.10,000/- per month but due to fracture in his leg and injuries in his left arm, he cannot do any work and a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- was claimed as compensation.

¶20

Initially, respondents No.1 and 2 appeared but thereafter, they absented and were proceeded ex parte.

¶21

Respondent No.3/Insurance Company in its written statement has refuted the contents of the claim petition. It is submitted that injury, if any, suffered by the claimant was due to his own negligence and not due to the offending vehicle. It has been denied that accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the truck driver. It is further submitted that the driver was not possessing a valid and effective driving licence and Insurance Company is thus not liable to indemnify the insured and dismissal of the claim petition was sought.

¶22

PRIYANKA THAKUR 2026.07.10 17:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶23

FAO-2247-2005 - 3 -

¶24

From the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed

¶25

by learned Tribunal:-

¶26

“1. Whether the accident in question took place due to rash and negligent driving of truck bearing NO. HR-05GA-0159 by its driver-respondent No.1? OPP

¶27

2. If issue No.1 is proved, whether the claimant is entitled to receive any compensation, if so, how much and from whom? OPP

¶28

3. Whether the claim petition is not maintainable in the present form? OPR

¶29

4. Whether the petition is bad for mis-joinder and non-joinder of necessary parties, if so, its effect? OPR

¶30

5. Whether the petitioner has got no cause of action to file the present petition? OPR

¶31

6. Whether the respondent No.1 was not holding a valid driving licence at the time of accident, if so its effect? OPR-3

¶32

7. Relief.”

¶33

7. Thereafter, the parties led their oral as well as documentary evidence and after hearing the parties and going through the material on record, learned Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident in question was an act of god and same had not taken place due to rash and negligent driving on the part of respondent No.1 and issue No.1 was decided against the claimant. Under Issue No.2, it was held that in case, the accident in question is proved to have taken place due to rash and negligent driving on the part of respondent No.1, in that eventuality, claimant would have been entitled to a sum of Rs.26,638/- as compensation. However, in view of finding on Issue No.1, the claim petition was dismissed.

¶34

PRIYANKA THAKUR 2026.07.10 17:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶35

FAO-2247-2005 - 4 -

¶36

Feeling aggrieved, the appeal in hand has been preferred. The material on file has been perused and parties have been heard.

¶37

The Tribunal while deciding on Issue No.1 against the claimant observed as under:-

¶38

“7. In his evidence, confining to this issue, petitioner Harpal Singh while stepping into the witness box as PW2 and through his Ex.PW2/A deposed on the lines of averments of his petition. He has testified that the accident had occurred due to the rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver of a truck bearing registration No.HR-05GA/0159. In his crossexamination, claimant has deposed that while he was admitted at Haryana Nursing Home, Karnal, police came there after two days of the accident. They took his signatures on the papers, but no case was registered by the police. He also filed a criminal complaint regarding the said case, but no summoning order was passed against the accused till that date. After the accident, he came to know that the owner of the truck in question was Sukhdev Singh and name of its driver was Krishan Kumar, which he came to know from the Truck Union. He has also refuted a suggestion that he filed the petition in collusion with the owner of the truck or that he did not make any report to the police or that no accident was caused with the truck No. HR-05GA/0159. Besides, claimant has also produced the copy of the DDR No. 31 dated 6.1.2001 as Ex. P6 and copy of complaint as Ex.P7.

¶39

8. It was contended by learned counsel for the claimant that the police did not lodge any FIR against the accused in collusion with him. Rather it obtained his signatures on some blank papers. On the other hand, it was contended by learned counsel for the respondent that the accident in question was not taken place due to the rash and negligent driving of the truck in question by respondent No.1, rather the accident, in question, took place due to the fault of no one because the road was slippery one due to rain. All a sudden, a cattle came in front of the truck in question and in order to avoid the accident, the truck driver applied its brake and because of the slippery condition of the road, it struck with the claimant and this fact was admitted by claimant himself while getting the

¶40

PRIYANKA THAKUR 2026.07.10 17:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶41

FAO-2247-2005

¶42

- 5 -

¶43

DDR Ex. P6 registered with the police. He next contended that earlier the claimant filed this claim petition under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act, but later on he got it amended as if filed under Section 166 of the Act. If the averments of the pt are taken to be true, then he has not put blame on any one, rather he claimed the compensation on account of "no fault liability".

¶44

9. On being given my thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view that DDR Ex.P6 is the first information report to the police and perusing the same, it is quite evident that the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the insurance company finds support from it. Injured claimant has made a statement to the police that there was no fault of any one. The wheels of the truck where slipped when he applied the brakes In such situation, in my opinion, accident, in question, had not taken place due to the rash or negligent driving of the truck by the respondent No.1, rather it had taken place due to the circumstances beyond the control of the driver of the truck. In other words, the accident in question can be termed as an act of God and for the same no one can be blamed. Admittedly, police did not lodge any FIR because claimant himself admitted no fault of any one. Neither the Magistrate found any one at fault in the complaint filed by him before the Magistrate. In such situation, it is not proved that the accident in question took place due to the rash and negligent driving of the vehicle in question. Hence, this issue is decided in favour of the respondent and against the claimant.”

¶45

However, the finding given by the Tribunal is highly erroneous and contrary to the evidence on record. Claimant while appearing as PW2 has categorically deposed that accident had taken place due to rash and negligent driving on the part of respondent No.1 while driving the offending vehicle. DDR No.31 dated 06.01.2001 Ex. P6 was also registered by the police but no FIR was got registered. Tribunal held that injured himself had given a statement to the police that no one was at fault as the tyres of the truck slipped when he applied

¶46

PRIYANKA THAKUR 2026.07.10 17:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶47

FAO-2247-2005 - 6 -

¶48

brakes and as such, the accident had not taken place due to rash and negligent driving of the truck driver. Rather, the same took place due to circumstances beyond the control of the driver and it can be termed as an act of God, for which, no one can be blamed. However, the driver was supposed to drive truck at a slow speed, in case, it was raining and the road was slippery and he should have taken reasonable care and precautions so that the truck does not slip as and when the brakes are applied. All these facts show that the truck was being driven in a rash and negligent manner and at a high speed despite the road being slippery and when the driver applied brakes, the truck slipped and went out of control of the driver and hit the claimant who was walking on the Kachha portion of the road resulting in injuries to him. In these circumstances, the only inference that can be drawn is that the accident in question had taken place due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle bearing No.HR-05GA-0159 being driven by respondent No.1. The finding on Issue No.1 is thus not sustainable and is accordingly reversed and this issue stands decided in favour of the claimant/appellant.

¶49

To prove the injuries suffered by him, claimant has examined PW1Dr. K.L. Sachdeva, Proprietor of Haryana Nursing Home, who deposed that on 03.01.2001, patient Latti @ Harpal was admitted in his Nursing Home with fracture of both bones on his left leg. Closed reduction, double pin-pass and plaster of paris were applied and he had charged a sum of Rs.3,000/- from the patient and the patient was discharged on 09.01.2001. The amount of Rs.3,000/does not include the cost of medicines and he proved the receipt Ex. P1, Discharge Slips Ex. P2 and OPD Slips Ex. P3 and Ex. P4.

¶50

PRIYANKA THAKUR 2026.07.10 17:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶51

FAO-2247-2005 - 7 -

¶52

As such, from the material on file, it is established that the claimant had suffered grievous injuries including fractures of both bones of left leg. It is a matter of common knowledge that pain component in such injuries is enormous and such injuries take a long time to heal. I t must have taken at least three months for the injuries to heal and taking into consideration the severity of injuries, claimant is held entitled to a sum of Rs.25,000/- on account of ‘pain and sufferings’ .

¶53

13. A sum of Rs.3,000/- was paid at the Hospital of Dr. K.L. Sachdeva, Haryana Nursing Home. Besides this, medical bills Ex.P8 to Ex.P17 have also been led in evidence, which show that he had spent another sum of Rs. 3,638/- on his treatment and the total thus comes out to Rs.6,638/-. However, it is a matter of common knowledge that the patients or their attendants generally do not preserve all the bills and some more amount must have been spent on the treatment and claimant is accordingly held entitled to a sum of Rs.7,500/- towards “expenses

¶54

incurred on treatment”.

¶55

14. In the present case, the accident had taken place in the year 2001 and the claimant must have been earning at least Rs.4,000/- per month while working as a crane driver. Therefore, income of claimant is taken as Rs.4,000/- per month.

¶56

It must have taken at least three months for the injuries to heal and during this period, claimant would not have been able to do any job and must have suffered loss of income and he is held entitled to a sum of Rs.12,000/- on account of ‘ loss of income during the period of treatment’

¶57

16. During this period, he must have spent some amount on

¶58

PRIYANKA THAKUR 2026.07.10 17:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶59

FAO-2247-2005 - 8 -

¶60

transportation, special diet and in engaging an attendant and he is accordingly held entitled to a sum of Rs.12,000/- under these heads.

¶61

17. Resultantly, finding on issue No.2 is reversed and same is decided in favour of claimant and the compensation to be awarded by this Court is assessed as under:-

¶62

Sr. No.	Head	This Court (₹)
1.	Pain & suffering	Rs.25,000/-
2.	Expenses incurred on treatment	Rs.7,500/-
3.	Transportation, special diet and attendant charges	Rs.12,000/-
4.	Loss of income during the treatment	Rs.12,000/-
	Total	Rs.56,500/-
	Interest	9%

¶63

In view of finding on issue No.1, the claim petition is certainly maintainable and claimant had the cause of action to file the present petition and learned counsel for respondent could not point out as to how the petition is bad for mis-joinder and non-joinder of parties. Resultantly, findings on Issue No.3 to 5 are also reversed and same are decided against respondents.

¶64

Under issue No.6, Tribunal has held that the vehicle was insured with respondent No.3-Insurance Company vide Insurance Policy Ex.R1 and no evidence has been led to establish that the insured had violated terms and conditions of the Insurance policy and in these circumstances, respondents No.1 to 3 shall be liable to pay compensation, joint and several.

¶65

PRIYANKA THAKUR 2026.07.10 17:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶66

FAO-2247-2005 - 9 -

¶67

Resultantly, the appeal in hand is accepted with costs and impugned award is set aside. Appellant/claimant is held entitled to a sum of Rs.56,500/- as compensation along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of claim petition i.e. 08.03.2001 till realization payable by respondents jointly and severally.

¶68

Registry is directed to email the authenticated copy of the award to the respondent Insurance Company in terms of directions issued by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Writ Petition (Civil) No.534 of 2020 titled “ Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Versus Union of India and others”, decided on 16.03.2021 and Insurance Company shall comply with the directions as issued under Clause (F) of the said judgment.

¶69

22. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.

¶70

(YASHVIR SINGH RATHOR) 07.07.2026 JUDGE Priyanka Thakur Whether speaking/reasoned. : Yes/No Whether Reportable. : Yes/No

¶71

PRIYANKA THAKUR 2026.07.10 17:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Harpal Singh v. Krishan Kumar and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Harpal Singh v. Krishan Kumar and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Harpreet Kaur Vs Ramesh Kumar

Kartar Singh Vs Notified Area Committee Manimajra, Chd

Kuleshta and Ors. Vs Jiya Lal and Ors.

Bishnu Mati Vs Joginder and Ors.

Islam & Ors. Vs Gajender Kumar Mishra & Ors.

(O&M) Anil Kumar Vs K.Ravi & Ors.