Smt Rakaiya and Ors. Vs State Ofh Aryana — Motor Accident Claims | Punjab & Haryana HC (2026)

Smt Rakaiya and Ors. Vs State Ofh Aryana — Motor Accident Claims | Punjab & Haryana HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Claimants' enhancement appeal dismissed; cross-objections of the driver allowed: Tribunal's recovery-rights finding set aside, insurance company held solely liable to satisfy the award; pending miscellaneous applications disposed of.

Issue for consideration

Whether the Tribunal erred in assessing the age of the deceased as 75 years and consequently awarding meagre compensation, warranting enhancement in appeal. +1 more

Court's answer

Admissions constitute substantive evidence and, unless satisfactorily explained, bind the party making them; the claimants furnished no plausible explanation to dislodge their own documentary admission (ration card and its application recording the deceased's age as 75 years).

Ratio / Principle

Where there is a conflict between oral assertions and contemporaneous documentary evidence, particularly official records, the latter ordinarily prevails.

Key takeaways

The learned Tribunal cannot be faulted for accepting the age of the deceased as 75 years on the proved documentary record.ratio¶28
Once the age is taken as 75 years, the Tribunal's inference regarding the deceased's earning capacity also does not call for interference.ratio¶29
The compensation awarded under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act suffers from no perversity, illegality or patent error warranting appellate interference; accordingly the claimants' appeal is dismissed.ratio

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Punjab & Haryana High Court (Deepak Gupta, J., oral, 23.03.2026) in FAO-4024-2003 with cross-objections XOBJC-3-2024 arising from a fatal bus accident of 18.09.1999 (bus HR-37-2442, driver Surinder Kumar, deceased Faquiria): (i) Enhancement appeal dismissed — the claimants' own ration card and application for its preparation, duly proved, recorded the deceased's age as 75 years; admissions bind unless explained, and contemporaneous official documentary evidence prevails over conflicting oral assertions; the Section 140 Motor Vehicles Act award of ₹50,000/- (no-fault liability) suffered no perversity. (ii) Cross-objections allowed — additional evidence (Annexures A-1 to A-11, admitted under Order XLI Rule 27/Section 151 CPC) proved licence No. 354/1987 (serial 171733) valid for heavy transport vehicles, with verified renewals including RTO Ambala's certificate of renewal 06.05.1997–05.05.2000 covering the accident date; the insurer failed to rebut their authenticity. An insurer seeking to avoid liability must prove a willful policy breach attributable to the insured; the Tribunal's fake-licence finding and recovery rights against driver/owner were set aside, the insurance company remaining solely liable to satisfy the award.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

104

XOBJC-3-2024 in/and FAO-4024-2003 (O&M) Date of Decision.:23.03.2026

Smt. Rakaiya and Others …..Appellants Vs. State of Haryana and Others .….Respondents

CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA

Present:Mr. Neeraj Khanna, Advocate for the appellants.

Mr. Gaurav Garg, AAG, Haryana for respondent Nos.1 and 2.

Mr. K.S. Kehar, Advocate for respondent No.3/cross-objector.

Mr. Vipul Sharma, Advocate for respondent No.4.

DEEPAK GUPTA, J. (ORAL)

The present appeal has been preferred by the claimants seeking enhancement of the compensa,on awarded by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ambala, whereas cross-objec,ons have been filed by the driver, duly supported by the owner i.e. State of Haryana and Haryana Roadways, Yamuna Nagar.

Power of a2orney on behalf of respondent No.3–Insurance Company has been filed.

An applica,on bearing No. CM-1205-CII-2024 under Order XLI Rule 27 read with Sec,on 151 CPC for placing on record addi,onal evidence was allowed vide order dated 02.02.2024 and documents Annexures A-1 to

NEETIKA TUTEJA 2026.03.24 11:43 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

XOBJC-3-2024 in/and FAO-4024-2003 (O&M)

-2-

A-11 have been taken on record.

Arguments have been heard and the record has been carefully perused.

The lis arises out of a motor vehicular accident dated 18.09.1999, caused due to rash and negligent driving of bus bearing registra,on No. HR-37-2442 by respondent Surinder Kumar. The said vehicle was owned by the Department of Transport, State of Haryana and insured with respondent–Insurance Company. In the said accident, one Faquiria lost his life. His legal representa,ves ins,tuted a claim pe,,on under Sec,on 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act. The learned Tribunal, vide award dated 08.01.2003, awarded a sum of ₹50,000/- under the no-fault liability principle and held the respondents jointly and severally liable, however gran,ng recovery rights to the insurer on the premise that the driving licence of the driver was fake.

Learned counsel for the appellants has assailed the award primarily on the ground that the learned Tribunal erred in assessing the age of the deceased as 75 years and consequently awarding a meagre compensa,on. It is contended that the age of the deceased, as per the claim pe,,on, was 49 years and even as per the oral tes,mony, it was stated to be 58 years, and therefore the compensa,on deserves enhancement.

I have considered the aforesaid submission. However, the same does not merit acceptance. A perusal of the record would reveal that there is a material inconsistency in the version of the claimants with regard to the age of the deceased. While different ages have been stated in the pleadings and oral evidence, the documentary evidence in the form of ra,on card and the applica,on for its prepara,on, submi2ed by the claimant himself, records the age of the deceased as 75 years. The said documents stand duly proved on record.

NEETIKA TUTEJA 2026.03.24 11:43 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

XOBJC-3-2024 in/and FAO-4024-2003 (O&M)

-3-

It is a se2led principle that admissions cons,tute substan,ve evidence and unless sa,sfactorily explained, bind the party making them. In the present case, the claimants have failed to furnish any plausible explana,on to dislodge their own documentary admission.

Further, where there is a conflict between oral asser,ons and contemporaneous documentary evidence, the la2er ordinarily prevails, par,cularly when emana,ng from official records. In view thereof, the learned Tribunal cannot be faulted for accep,ng the age of the deceased as 75 years.

Once the age is taken to be 75 years, the inference drawn by the learned Tribunal regarding the earning capacity of the deceased also does not call for interference. The Tribunal has rightly observed that it would be improbable for a person of such advanced age to be engaged in strenuous earning ac,vity, as claimed, especially when adult earning members were present in the family.

In the considered opinion of this Court, the compensa,on awarded under Sec,on 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act does not suffer from any perversity, illegality or patent error warran,ng interference in appellate jurisdic,on. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the claimants is dismissed.

As regards the cross-objec,ons filed by the driver, it is no,ced that the learned Tribunal had recorded a finding that the driving licence bearing No. 17173 of 1990, allegedly issued by DTO, Gurdaspur, was not valid, inasmuch as a report from the said authority indicated that no such licence had been issued. It was further observed that even the Licensing Authority, Karnal, which had purportedly renewed the licence, reported that no such renewal had been effected. On the said premise, the Tribunal proceeded to grant recovery rights to the insurance company.

However, in the addi,onal evidence permi2ed by this Court,

NEETIKA TUTEJA 2026.03.24 11:43 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

XOBJC-3-2024 in/and FAO-4024-2003 (O&M)

-4-

the cross-objector–driver has placed on record documents Annexures A-1 to A-11, which materially alter the factual posi,on. The said documents reveal that the driver had sought verifica,on from DTO, Gurdaspur with respect to driving licence No. 354 dated 20.02.1987 valid upto 19.02.1990, bearing serial No. 171733, and as per the official record, the said licence was found to be valid for driving heavy transport vehicles.

Further, Annexure A-2 establishes that the subsequent renewal for the period from 24.10.2000 to 04.05.2003, as verified by the Licensing Authority, Yamuna Nagar, was also valid. Most significantly, Annexure A-4, issued by the RTO, Ambala, cer,fies that the licence stood duly renewed for the period from 06.05.1997 to 05.05.2000, which squarely covers the date of accident.

Learned counsel appearing for the insurance company has not been able to dislodge or rebut the authen,city of the aforesaid documents, which are issued by the competent statutory authori,es in due course of official business.

In view of the aforesaid material, the finding recorded by the learned Tribunal regarding the driving licence being fake, cannot be sustained. Once it stands established on the basis of unimpeached documentary evidence that the driving licence was validly issued and that the renewal thereof covered the date of accident, the driver must be held to be duly licensed at the relevant ,me.

It is well se2led that in order to avoid its liability, the insurance company must not only establish breach of policy condi,ons but must further prove that such breach was willful and a2ributable to the insured. In the absence of any such evidence, and in the face of valid licence having been proved, the insurer cannot be absolved of its statutory liability.

Consequently, the driver and owner of the offending vehicle cannot be fastened with the liability to sa,sfy the award, and the recovery

NEETIKA TUTEJA 2026.03.24 11:43 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

XOBJC-3-2024 in/and FAO-4024-2003 (O&M)

-5-

rights granted to the insurance company are liable to be set aside.

Accordingly, the cross-objec,ons are allowed. The finding of the learned Tribunal gran,ng recovery rights to the insurance company is set aside and it is held that the liability to sa,sfy the award shall be that of the insurance company, in terms of the award passed by the learned Tribunal.

All pending miscellaneous applica,ons, if any, also stand disposed of.

(DEEPAK GUPTA) JUDGE

March 23, 2026

Nee,ka Tuteja

Whether Speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No

NEETIKA TUTEJA 2026.03.24 11:43 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document