Jasbir Kaur & Ors. Vs Gurpreet Singh & Anr.

Prayer in this application f iled under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 is for condonation of delay of 20 days in filing the accompan y ing appeal.

¶12

Heard.

¶13

For the reasons stated in the application which is supported by an affi d avit, the same is allowed; an d delay of 20 days in filing the accompan y ing appeal is condoned. FAO-3076-2017

¶14

Present appeal has been fil e d by the appellant-claimants against the dismissal of their claim petitio n bearing MACP Case No. 09 of 2016 date d 30.01.2016filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’), by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tri b unal, Ambala (for short-‘the l e arned Tribunal) vide impugned Award dat e d 17.11.2016. The 04 claimant s are the: i) 36-year-old widow;

¶15

RISHU KATARIA 2026.03.05 10:33 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment.

¶16

FAO-3076-2017 (O&M)

¶17

-2-

¶18

ii) 02 min o r children; and iii) 75-year-old m other of deceased-Sukhwinder Singh wh o was 41 years old who died in a motor vehicular accident that took place on 29.10.2015 due to rash and negligent driving of car baring registratio n No. HR-01-Y-4792 (hereinaft e r referred to as-‘the offending Car’) bei n g owned and driven by resp o ndent No. 1; and insured by responden t No. 2-Insurance Company.

¶19

Pleaded case of the claiman t s as recorded in paras No. 2 and 3 of the impugned Award, reads as fol l ows: -

¶20

“2. According to petitioner s , on 29.10.2015, deceased was coming to Shahabad (M) fro m Delhi travelling in offending car bearing No. HR-01Y-47 9 2. He was going to his village Dera Salimpur and was to g e t down from the car at the Bus Stand of Shahabad (M), Di s tt. Kurukshetra. The car was being driven by responden t no.1 in rash and negligent manner and at high speed wit h out observing the traffic rules. When car reached on the s ervice lane on G.T. Road at Shahabad (M), respondent no.1 could not control his car due to high speed. Resultantly, c a r was rammed into the railing on the road, due to which d eceased suffered multiple and serious injuries. Some passer s by took out injured Sukhwinder Singh from the car. Responde n t no.1 and his other associates ran away from the spot. The d eceased was shifted to L.N.J.P. hospital, Kurukshetra but co u ld not survive and died due to injuries sustained in the a c cident. The postmortem was conducted in the said hosp i tal. On the statement of eye witness Mukesh Kumar, DD R Entry No.41 dated 29.10.2015 was recorded at Police Statio n Shahabad (M). 3. Further case of the cla i mants is that at the time of his death, deceased was a youn g person of 41 years of age. He was driver by profession in D elhi. Initially, he was working with Ajmer Singh on his car a nd later on, he was working as driver with Shri Gurdial Sin g h son of Shri Kaushal Singh, Haryana Taxi Service, Karka r duma, Shopping Centre, Delhi. He was getting ₹12,000/- pe r month by the said work. His untimely death has scattered t he hopes of the claimants, who were dependent solely on th e income of the deceased. Both minor children of deceased a r e school going. The claimants have suffered great financi a l loss, as there is no other member in the family to earn livelihood. The claimants spent ₹40,000/- on the last rites of t h e deceased.”

¶21

RISHU KATARIA 2026.03.05 10:33 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment.

¶22

FAO-3076-2017 (O&M) -3-

¶23

Upon appraisal of pleadings a nd evidence adduced before it, the learne d Tribunal had concluded that “ … …accident was caused due to some tech n ical defect in car, without fault of the driver of the car and there was no rash and negligent drivin g . It is further held that PW-3 Mukesh is n ot a reliable witness.”

¶24

Learned counsel for the ap p ellants assails the impugned Award by submitting that DDR No. 4 1 dated 29.10.2015, had been registered on the basis of statement of eye-witness Mukesh at Police Station Shahbad(M). The said Mukesh K umar had appeared before the learned T r ibunal as PW-3 and has clear l y testified about the rash and negligent d riving of the offending car b y respondent No. 1.Thus, the appellants had duly proved on record th e rash and negligent driving of offending car by respondent No. 1, the r eby fulfilling the requirement under Section 166 of the Act. Theref o re, there was no reason for dismissing the claim petition.

¶25

Further, it is argued that the l e arned Tribunal had erred in not appreciati n g the fact that the statement rec o rded before the police is of no evidentiar y value as PW-3 Mukesh Kum a r had categorically stated that the police h ad taken his signatures on so m e blank papers. Even, the bare reading of the statement Ex. R-4 and the D DR Ex. P-3 clearly proves that there is n e gligence on the part of the dri v er. PW-3 Mukesh Kumar had clearly sta t ed that the car hit the railing o f G.T. Road, due to which the front porti o n of the car was broken. It is s ubmitted that a person who is driving in a normal speed could have easi l y averted the hitting of the car in the raili n g. Therefore, it was only due t o rashness and negligence of the

¶26

RISHU KATARIA 2026.03.05 10:33 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment.

¶27

FAO-3076-2017 (O&M) -4-

¶28

driver inas m uch as the car was driven at s uch a high speed that he could not contro l the car and the same hit the railing and thus resulted into accident. L earned counsel contends that t h e said aspect of the matter has not been c o nsidered by the by learned Trib u nal. 6. It is also contended that th e learned Tribunal has further erred in n ot appreciating that in fact there is no contradiction in the statement o f Mukesh Kumar PW 3 before the learned Tribunal and the police. Th e bare reading of the same w o uld clearly show that the said witness h a s explained the accident in t he same manner in both the statements and, therefore, there is no s u ch contradiction as observed. Thus, the l earned Tribunal had misread t h e statement of PW-3 Mukesh Kumar.

¶29

It is argued that the learned Tribunal while dismissing the claim petit i on has erroneously observed q u a the concealment made by the appellants in the claim petition, in fact a compromise Ex. R-2 is of no consequen c e viz-a-viz the filing of c laim petition and claiming compensat i on thereof is concerned. T h e appellants have right to compensat i on on account of death of S ukhwinder Singh in a motor vehicular a ccident occurred due to rash an d negligent driving of offending car by res p ondent No. 1. Accordingly, le a rned counsel for the appellants prays for s e tting aside of the impugned A w ard.

¶30

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.

¶31

RISHU KATARIA 2026.03.05 10:33 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment.

¶32

FAO-3076-2017 (O&M)

¶33

-5-

¶34

First and foremost, it is to be mentioned that admittedly, the claimants had compromised the matter with respondent No. 1 vide compromi s e/settlement Ex. R-2; and h ad received an amount of ₹8,00,000/ - vide receipt Ex. R-3. This f act was not disclosed by the claimants i n their claim petition filed be fo re the ld. Tribunal. Although, when con f ronted, these documents have b een admitted to be correct by PW-1-Jas b ir Kaur. Relevant findings in th i s regard have been recorded by the learne d Tribunal in para No. 25 of the impugned Award, which reads as follows:-

¶35

“25. Apart from above, it wi l l not be out of place to mention that a compromise was rea c hed by claimant Jasbir Kaur, copy of which is Ex.R2, as pe r which, a Panchayat had taken place attended by respectabl e s of the village and they were satisfied that Sukhwinder Sin g h had died in the car accident due to hitting of the car to th e divider, by chance and nobody was at fault in this regard. Claimant Jasbir Kaur is also signatory to this comprom i se. It is mentioned in this document that complaint had been made against Lakhwinder Singh, Hemant Narang and G urpreet Singh i.e. respondent no.1. Not only this, Ex.R3 is copy of receipt, whereby claimant Jasbir Kaur receiv e d an amount of ₹8 lacs from Lakhwinder Singh and Hem a nt Narang. Said amount was received by Smt. Jasbir Kaur , as per her testimony as PW1, on account of death of her husband. Both the documents have been admitted by PW1 Jasbir Kaur to be correct. All these facts have been concealed by claimants as nothing to this effect was disclosed in th e petition.”

¶36

Thus, Claimants have not app r oached with clean hands.

¶37

Besides the above, it is to be seen that claimant No. 1-Jasbir

¶38

Kaur has g iven different causes for the de a th of her husband-Sukhwinder Singh. Fir s tly, she had alleged that Sukhw i nder Singh had been murdered (which al l egation has been ignored b y the learned Tribunal taking compassio n ate view of the matter, on ac c ount of the fact that claimant

¶39

RISHU KATARIA 2026.03.05 10:33 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment.

¶40

FAO-3076-2017 (O&M)

¶41

-6-

¶42

No. 1 wou l d be emotionally distraught on account of sudden death of her husband). Simultaneously, it has been alleged by the claimants that the deceased h ad died due to injuries suffere d by him in the motor vehicular accident d a ted 29.10.2015, due to rash an d negligent driving of offending car by res p ondent No. 1. To support thei r case, the appellants had only examined PW-3 Mukesh Kumar, state d to be an eyewitness of the accident. O ther occupants of the offendi n g car at the time of accident other than respondent No. 1 have inexpli c ably not been examined by the claimants.

¶43

Further, perusal of the reco r d reveals that on 29.10.2015 itself, PW - 3 Mukesh Kumar had made a s tatement Ex. R-4 to the police stating th e rein that the offending vehicl e which was moving towards Ambala w a s being driven by some un-kno w n person and was occupied by 04 persons. PW-3 had further stated that t h e accident had occurred due to some tech n ical fault in the car as a resu l t of which the car had hit the railing at G .T. Road by chance in which n o body was at fault. The said car hit the rail i ng of G.T. Road, due to which f ront portion of the said car was broken. O n the basis of statement Ex. R-4 m ade by PW-3 Mukesh Kumar, the police had registered DDR Ex. P-3. I t is to be noted that in the said DDR, ther e is no mention that the car ha d hit the divider or that the car was being driven rashly and negligently b y respondent No. 1. Thus, the contradict o ry testimony of PW-3 Muke s h Kumar before the learned Tribunal t h at at the time of accident, the o f fending car was being driven in rash and n egligent manner by responde n t No. 1 would not hold any weight.

¶44

RISHU KATARIA 2026.03.05 10:33 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment.

¶45

FAO-3076-2017 (O&M) -7-

¶46

Even in the claim petition, t he claimants have specifically mentioned in para 9 thereof that DDR Ent r y No. 41 dated 29.10.2015 was made and n o FIR was recorded. But there i s no averment to the effect that the said D D R was recorded on the basis o f wrong facts. Thus, subsequent contention of PW-3-Mukesh Kumar tha t the police had obtained his signatures on blank papers is an aftertho u ght, in view of the afore-noted facts. It w a s in the abovesaid facts and ci r cumstances of the case that the claim petit i on came to be dismissed.

¶47

In view of the discussion ab o ve, I find no case is made out that merits interference with the imp u gned Award. The appeal is

¶48

dismissed .

¶49

Pending application(s) if any a lso stand(s) disposed of.

¶50

27.02.2026 ( NIDHI GUPTA ) rishu JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No

¶51

RISHU KATARIA 2026.03.05 10:33 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment.

Jasbir Kaur & Ors. v. Gurpreet Singh & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jasbir Kaur & Ors. v. Gurpreet Singh & Anr.

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

Charan Singh Vs Mahinder Singh and Others

Deepa Rani and Ors. Vs Gurvinder Singh and Ors.

Harvinder Kaur Vs State of Punjab and Others

Sanjay and Others Vs Mohit and Others

Sanjay Kumar Vs Municipal Corporation, Taraori and Another

Jasbir Kaur Vs Sant Ranjit Singh Chairman, Bhai Asa Singh Girls College and Others