Punjab-Haryana High Court
National Insurance Co. Ltd vs Bajinder Singh And Ors on 13 December, 2023
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:160763
2023:PHHC:160763
FAO-3659-2018 (O&M) with
FAO-4076-2019 (O&M) -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
Reserved on:- 20.11.2023
Pronounced on:- 13.12.2023
(1) FAO-3659-2018 (O&M)
National Insurance Co. Ltd.
...Appellant
Versus
Bajinder Singh and others
...Respondents
(2) FAO-4076-2019 (O&M)
Bajinder Singh
... Appellant
Versus
Manjit Singh and others
...Respondents
CORAM:- HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE AMARJOT BHATTI
Present:- Mr. Amit Jaiswal, Advocate
for the appellant in FAO-3659-2018
and for respondent No. 3 in FAO-4076-2019.
Mr. Amandeep Singh Saini, Advocate
for respondent No. 1 in FAO-3659-2018
and for the appellant in FAO-4076-2019.
Mr. Rahul Garg, Advocate
for respondents No. 2 and 3 in FAO-3659-2018.
*****
AMARJOT BHATTI, J.
1. The appellant - National Insurance Company Limited has
filed appeal bearing FAO No. 3659 of 2018 for setting aside the impugned
Award dated 23.02.2018 passed by learned Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal, Rupnagar, whereas, the appellant/claimant - Bajinder Singh has
1 of 14
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:160763
2023:PHHC:160763
FAO-3659-2018 (O&M) with
FAO-4076-2019 (O&M) -2-
filed the appeal bearing FAO No. 4076 of 2019 for modification and
enhancement of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, as referred above.
Both these appeals have arisen out of the same Award dated 23.02.2018,
therefore, the appeals are taken up together for disposal.
2. The facts of the case are that Bajinder Singh had filed claim
petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 for grant of
compensation of Rs. 50,00,000/- alongwith interest @18% per annum on
account of injuries suffered by him in a motor vehicular accident. It was
submitted by the injured/claimant that at the time of accident, he was 30
years old and was serving in Indian Army. He was drawing monthly
income of Rs. 35,000/- per month. On 30.11.2010, the injured/claimant
along with one Prabhjot Singh and Jaswinder Singh were going to Village
Brahmpur from their village on motorcycle bearing Registration No. HP-
12-C-7905, which was being driven by the injured/claimant with proper
care and caution. When they reached in the area of Village Ajouli, then at
about 12:30 pm, a car bearing Registration No. HP-24-A-7578 came from
behind at a high speed, without blowing horn and hit the motorcycle due to
which the injured along with said persons fell down on the road and
received multiple grievous injuries. The said car was being driven in a rash
and negligent manner by its driver i.e. respondent No. 1. The injured was
firstly taken to BBMB Nangal from where the doctor referred him to
Command Hospital, Panchkula. Regarding this accident, FIR No. 143
dated 03.12.2010 under Section 279, 337, 338, 427 of I.P.C. was registered
at Police Station Nangal, against respondent No. 1. Hence, the claim
petition.
3. The claim petition was contested by all the respondents. In the
2 of 14
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:160763
2023:PHHC:160763
FAO-3659-2018 (O&M) with
FAO-4076-2019 (O&M) -3-
separate written statements filed by respondents No. 1 and 2, preliminary
objection regarding maintainability was taken. Both the answering
respondents have denied the accident as well as the involvement of vehicle
in question. It was further submitted that the name of the owner of vehicle
in question was Daryhodhan Singh s/o Sh. Krishan Singh. The insurer of
the vehicle in question was National Insurance Company Limited, Branch
Office Hamirpur, District Hamirpur (HP). It was further alleged that the
story put forth by the claimant was false, fabricated, concocted and self-
contradictory. Hence, it was prayed that the claim petition may be
dismissed with costs.
4. The Insurance Company - respondent No. 3 also filed
separate written statement taking the stand that claim petition was not
maintainable in the present form. It was alleged that claimant has filed the
claim petition in connivance with respondents No. 1 and 2 in order to get
illegal compensation from the answering respondent. The driver of the
offending car was not holding a valid and effective driving license at the
time of alleged accident. He was not having the Registration Certificate,
Fitness Certificate and Insurance at the time of alleged accident. Therefore,
the answering respondent was not liable to pay compensation. While
denying remaining averments, it was prayed that the claim petition filed by
the injured/claimant may be dismissed qua the answering respondent -
Insurance Company.
5. From the pleadings of the parties, following issues were
framed by the Tribunal on 08.02.2017 :-
(1) Whether Bajinder Singh received injuries in motor vehicular
accident which took place on 30.11.2010 at about 12:30 pm in the
area of village Ajouli, due to rash and negligent driving of vehicle
3 of 14
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:160763
2023:PHHC:160763
FAO-3659-2018 (O&M) with
FAO-4076-2019 (O&M) -4-
No. HP-24-A-7578 being driven by respondent No. 1? OPP
(2) Whether the claimant is entitled for compensation as prayed
for? OPP
(3) Whether the respondents were not having valid documents i.e.
driving license, RC, route permit, fitness certificate at the time of
accident? OPR
(4) Whether the present claim petition is not maintainable? OPR
(5) Relief.
6. In order to prove the claim petition, the petitioner Bajinder
Singh himself stepped into the witness box as PW5 and tendered his
affidavit Ex.PW5/A into evidence. He further examined Mohinder Singh
Saini as PW1, Jaswinder Singh as PW2, HC Sukhdev Singh as PW3, HAV
Dilip Sarkar Command Hospital (WC) as PW4, HC Jogga Singh as PW6
and Sardara Singh (Retd. ASI) as PW7. Thereafter, learned counsel for the
claimant closed the evidence.
7. In order to rebut the case of the claimant, respondent No. 1
himself stepped into the witness box as RW1 and tendered his affidavit
Ex.RW1/A into evidence. In documentary evidence, learned counsel for
respondents No.1 and 2 tendered certified copy of RC of vehicle No. HP-
24-A-7578 as Ex.R-1, copy of driving license of Manjit Singh as Ex.R-2,
copy of Insurance Policy as Ex.R-3 and copy of Judgment dated
17.09.2016 in case titled "State vs. Manjit Singh" as Ex.R-4. Thereafter,
closed his evidence.
8. The learned counsel for respondent No. 3 tendered certified
copy of judgment dated 17.09.2016 as Ex.R-5, certified copy of statement
of Sh. Bajinder Singh as Ex.R-6 and certified copy of statement of Sh.
Jaswinder Singh as Ex.R-7 and thereafter, the evidence of respondent No.3
was closed by order on 08.02.2018.
4 of 14
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:160763
2023:PHHC:160763
FAO-3659-2018 (O&M) with
FAO-4076-2019 (O&M) -5-
9. After hearing the arguments advanced by learned counsel for
all the parties, the claim petition filed by the petitioner/claimant was
allowed by passing impugned Award dated 23.02.2018 vide which he was
awarded compensation to the tune of Rs. 7,95,000/- with interest at the rate
of 9% per annum from the date of filing of petition till its actual realization
as detailed therein.
10. Feeling aggrieved of this Award, the appeal bearing FAO
No.3659 of 2018 has been preferred by appellant - Insurance Company,
whereas, the appeal bearing FAO No. 4076 of 2019 has been preferred by
the appellant/claimant Bajinder Singh.
I have heard the arguments of learned counsels representing
the parties in both the appeals. The learned counsel for the appellant -
insurance company in FAO-3659-2018 argued that Award dated
23.02.2018 passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Rupnagar
is against the facts and the evidence on record. The learned Tribunal has
totally ignored the evidence and the documents duly proved on record. The
learned counsel representing the insurance company has mainly argued the
present appeal regarding the findings given on issue No. 1 where it was
wrongly held that from the evidence it was established that the accident
had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of respondent No. 1. It is
pointed out that the present claim petition was filed before the Tribunal
after a gap of more than four and a half years from the date of accident.
The learned counsel for the insurance company has proved on record the
copy of judgment in a criminal case registered against Manjit Singh in the
FIR No. 143 dated 03.12.2010 under Section 279, 337, 338, 427 of I.P.C,
Police Station Nangal, in which the present claimant had received injuries.
5 of 14
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:160763
2023:PHHC:160763
FAO-3659-2018 (O&M) with
FAO-4076-2019 (O&M) -6-
The copy of judgment in criminal case bearing Police Challan RT No. 513
of 28.02.2011, decided on 17.09.2016 titled "State versus Manjit Singh" is
Ex.R5, according to which Manjit Singh was acquitted of the charge
framed against him by giving him the benefit of doubt. He has further
placed on record the copy of statement of Bajinder Singh recorded before
the learned Magistrate dated 28.10.2013 Ex.R6 and statement of Jaswinder
Singh dated 06.01.2015 is Ex.R7, where both the witnesses did not support
the prosecution case. They had failed to identify the driver involved in the
said accident and further claimed that they had not given any statement to
the police regarding the involvement of accused in the said accident. The
learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Rupnagar has wrongly ignored
the aforesaid evidence and wrongly concluded that it was proved on record
that the accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving of
respondent No. 2 Manjit Singh (respondent No. 1 in claim petition). The
learned counsel for the insurance company has relied upon the authority
cited in 2010(4) PLR 235, Punjab and Haryana High Court, given by the
Coordinate Bench in case titled "United India Insurance Company
Limited versus Kamla Devi and others", where in para No. 5 of the
judgment in a similar case it was observed as follows :-
"5. ... It must be remembered a statement in criminal court case by a
witness is also on oath. If he was uttering falsehood, he was liable for
perjury. If there was contradiction between the version elicited before
the Tribunal to the statement made before the criminal court then
such a witness will be unworthy of acceptance. The Tribunal could
have simply rejected the whole evidence. If it was going to pick out
one line from chief examination to say that the insured's vehicle was
involved in the accident, the Tribunal was doing something which is
not a judicial function but a travesty of justice."
6 of 14
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:160763
2023:PHHC:160763
FAO-3659-2018 (O&M) with
FAO-4076-2019 (O&M) -7-
Furthermore, in para No. 6 of the aforesaid judgment, it was
observed that the decision rendered by the Tribunal, under such
circumstance, relying on an untrustworthy witness cannot stand judicial
scrutiny before this Court. As a result, the appeal preferred by the
insurance company was accepted and the Award passed by the Tribunal
was set aside.
By relying upon the aforesaid authority, the learned counsel
for insurance company pointed out that even in the case in hand, the
testimony of Bajinder Singh before the Court of Judicial Magistrate and
his version before the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Rupnagar
is self contradictory. Therefore, his statement cannot be relied upon. Thus
the claimant himself failed to establish that the accident had taken place
due to rash and negligent driving of Manjit Singh driver, respondent No. 2
(respondent No. 1 in claim petition). Once it is established that the
accident or rash and negligent driving on the part of said Manjit Singh is
not proved on record, under these circumstances no liability can be
fastened on the insurance company to pay compensation to the claimant
for the alleged accident. Therefore, the Award passed by the learned Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal, Rupnagar may kindly be set aside by accepting
the present appeal. The learned counsel for insurance company regarding
the appeal preferred by the claimants seeking enhancement of
compensation pointed out that Bajinder Singh did not incur any medical
expenditure on his treatment as he received treatment from Command
Hospital, Panchkula. He is still in service. He has not placed on record any
Disability Certificate to establish the kind of disability suffered by him.
Even if he is retired from Army on account of his medical condition, he
7 of 14
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:160763
2023:PHHC:160763
FAO-3659-2018 (O&M) with
FAO-4076-2019 (O&M) -8-
will receive his pension. Therefore, he has not suffered any monetary loss
and the appeal preferred by him seeking enhancement of compensation is
without merits.
11. On the other hand in FAO-4076-2019, appellant/claimant
Bajinder Singh has filed appeal for enhancement of compensation along
with application for condonation of delay of 280 days in filing the present
appeal and condonation of delay of 39 days in re-filing the present appeal.
In the application for condonation of delay of 280 days in filing the present
appeal, it was alleged that he did not receive any message from the clerk of
his counsel at lower Court, as a result, he could not file appeal on time and
regarding delay in re-filing the present appeal it was alleged that since he
was serving in Indian Army, he could not clear the objections.
I have considered the stand taken by appellant/claimant
Bajinder Singh in FAO-4076-2019. In this case, the insurance company
has also filed appeal against the impugned Award dated 23.02.2018 with
the prayer to set aside the Award passed by the learned Motor Accident
Claims Tribunal, Rupnagar granting compensation in favour of Bajinder
Singh, the present appellant. In the said appeal, notice is served upon the
claimant. It is always in the interest of justice that the matter is decided on
merits. Once the appeal is filed by the insurance company, the Award
passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Rupnagar is
subject to scrutiny. Therefore, taking a lenient view, the delay of 280 days
in filing the present appeal and delay of 39 days in re-filing the present
appeal stands condoned. Accordingly, CMs No. 13438-CII and 13439-CII
of 2019 are allowed.
12. The learned counsel for appellant/claimant Bajinder Singh has
8 of 14
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:160763
2023:PHHC:160763
FAO-3659-2018 (O&M) with
FAO-4076-2019 (O&M) -9-
taken the stand that the compensation awarded by the learned Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal, Rupnagar is meager and without any
justification. In-fact, he is entitled to enhanced amount of compensation.
The learned counsel for appellant/claimant Bajinder Singh referred to his
statement PW5 who has proved the facts regarding the manner of accident
as well as the injuries suffered by him in the accident. Mohinder Singh
Saini, his Power of Attorney has also stepped into the witness box as PW1
to prove his version. Jaswinder Singh the pillion rider has also stepped into
the witness box as PW2 to confirm the accident as well as the manner in
which it took place. The claimant had also examined HC Jogga Singh PW6
to prove the registration of FIR No. 143 dated 03.12.2010 under Section
279, 337, 338, 427 of I.P.C. registered at Police Station Nangal, which is
Ex.PW6/A. Sardara Singh (Retd. ASI), the Investigating Officer also
stepped into the witness box as PW7 to prove the accident as well as the
investigation which was carried out by him. Therefore, from the evidence
led before learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Rupnagar, the
accident caused by rash and negligent driving of Manjit Singh while
driving car bearing Registration No. HP-24-A-7578 was duly proved on
record. The vehicle was insured with National Insurance Company
Limited. The copy of insurance policy is Ex.R3. Therefore, the insurance
company cannot escape its liability.
13. It is pointed out that the learned Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal, Rupnagar has merely granted compensation of Rs. 7,95,000/-
along with interest as detailed in the Award dated 23.02.2018. The
claimant had examined HC Sukhdev Singh from 21 Sikh Regiment as
PW3 who has proved on record the service certificate of Bajinder Singh
9 of 14
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:160763
2023:PHHC:160763
FAO-3659-2018 (O&M) with
FAO-4076-2019 (O&M) -10-
Ex.P1, brief case medical history of the claimant Ex.P2 and his pay slip
Ex.P3. The salary certificate Ex.P3 shows that his gross salary was
Rs.48,487/- per month. The medical record of Bajinder Singh is Ex.P6. It
is pointed out that as per the record proved on file, the service career of
Bajinder Singh has been adversely affected due to permanent low medical
categorization. He has suffered loss of service on account of his low
medical category. The learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Rupnagar
while passing the impugned Award wrongly came to the conclusion that
he has suffered loss of income to the extent of Rs. 5,000/- per month,
annual income Rs. 60,000/- and income for 13 years is wrongly calculated
as Rs. 7,80,000/-. He is granted meager amount of Rs. 15,000/- under the
head of pain and suffering, thus, the learned Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal, Rupnagar has awarded meager compensation of Rs. 7,95,000/-
along with interest as mentioned therein. He has suffered great loss on
account of his future prospects in the Army by way of promotion as well
as corresponding salary. Therefore, considering his salary and loss of
service, he is entitled to enhanced amount of compensation. He has further
claimed more compensation under the conventional heads. Therefore, the
Award dated 23.02.2018 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal, Rupnagar may kindly be modified by granting enhanced amount
of compensation.
14. I have considered the arguments advanced before me. I have
also gone through the trial Court record carefully. Firstly I will deal with
the findings on issue No. 1. Bajinder Singh filed claim petition under
Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 for grant of compensation on
account of injuries suffered by him. It is the case of the claimant that on
10 of 14
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:160763
2023:PHHC:160763
FAO-3659-2018 (O&M) with
FAO-4076-2019 (O&M) -11-
30.11.2010, he was going on his motorcycle bearing Registration No. HP-
12-C-7905 to village Brahmpur and when he reached near village Ajouli at
about 10:30 pm, the offending car bearing Registration No. HP-24-A-7578
came from behind without blowing horn in a rash and negligent manner
and hit his motorcycle from behind. The said car was driven rashly and
negligently by Manjit Singh driver. The accident took place on 30.11.2010
and FIR No. 143 dated 03.12.2010 under Section 279, 337, 338, 427 of
I.P.C. was registered at Police Station Nangal. It is matter of record that in
order to prove this accident, Bajinder Singh the claimant stepped into the
witness box as PW5 and his version is also supported by Jaswinder Singh
pillion rider as PW2. The copy of FIR proved on file by HC Jogga Singh
PW6 is Ex.PW6/A. Apart from this, the Investigating Officer Retired ASI
Sardara Singh stepped into the witness box as PW7 and confirmed that he
had recorded the FIR as per the statement of complainant Bajinder Singh.
He further confirmed that Bajinder Singh had received injury along with
two other persons namely Prabhjot and Jaswinder Singh. So far as the
aforesaid statements of the witnesses are concerned, those are there to
confirm the facts as mentioned in the claim petition. The learned counsel
for insurance company has proved on record the copy of judgment in
Police Challan RT No. 513 of 28.02.2011, decided on 17.09.2016 titled
"State versus Manjit Singh", vide which Manjit Singh was acquitted of the
charge framed against him, giving him the benefit of doubt vide judgment
of acquittal dated 17.09.2016, which is Ex.R5. The perusal of this
judgment indicates that Manjit Singh was acquitted on account of the
statement of Bajinder Singh PW1 and Jaswinder Singh PW2, who did not
support the prosecution case nor they identified the accused Manjit Singh
11 of 14
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:160763
2023:PHHC:160763
FAO-3659-2018 (O&M) with
FAO-4076-2019 (O&M) -12-
facing trial in that case. The learned counsel for insurance company has
also placed on record the copy of statement of Bajinder Singh recorded
before the learned Magistrate dated 28.10.2013 Ex.R6 and statement of
Jaswinder Singh recorded on 06.01.2015 Ex.R7. Bajinder Singh as a
witness claimed that he cannot identify Manjit Singh being driver of the
offending vehicle. He denied to have given statement Ex.PA before the
police. He further denied his participation in the investigation of the case.
Similarly, Jaswinder Singh as PW2 before the learned Magistrate denied to
have given any statement to the police and further refused to identify
Manjit Singh accused facing trial before the learned Magistrate. These
statements ultimately led to the acquittal of Manjit Singh vide judgment
dated 17.09.2016 Ex.R5. The accident took place on 30.11.2010 and the
present claim petition was filed on 20.05.2015 in which Bajinder Singh
gave his statement as PW5 recorded on 15.11.2017, where he changed his
version altogether. It is settled principle that judgment in a criminal case is
not binding on the Civil Court. The criteria to decide the criminal case is to
prove the guilt of accused beyond the shadows of reasonable doubt,
whereas, in a civil case, it is decided on the basis of preponderance of
probabilities. The proceedings in a claim petition under the provisions of
Motor Vehicles Act are summary proceedings. Keeping in mind these
principles, in my opinion the appellant/claimant Bajinder Singh cannot be
permitted to take contradictory stand before different forums. In order to
grant compensation, the testimony of the claimant has to be trustworthy.
The claimant Bajinder Singh lost his credibility when he gave different
statement before the learned Magistrate, which is Ex.R6 and when he
stepped into the witness box before the learned Motor Accident
12 of 14
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:160763
2023:PHHC:160763
FAO-3659-2018 (O&M) with
FAO-4076-2019 (O&M) -13-
Claims Tribunal, Rupnagar as PW5, he gave altogether different version.
Similarly, the statement of Jaswinder Singh recorded before the learned
Magistrate and thereafter, his statement before the learned Motor Accident
Claims Tribunal, Rupnagar is self contradictory. The entire record was
presented before the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Rupnagar
and the same has been wrongly ignored. The authority cited in 2010(4)
PLR 235 (supra) is applicable to the facts of the present case. The
appellant in FAO-4076-2019/claimant Bajinder Singh cannot be permitted
to blow hot and cold in the same breath. Therefore, the findings given by
the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Rupnagar pertaining to issue
No. 1, in my opinion are not justified and the same are accordingly,
reversed by holding that the testimony of Bajinder Singh, the claimant
does not inspire confidence and therefore, he failed to prove that the
accident had actually taken place due to rash and negligent driving of
Manjit Singh respondent No. 1 in FAO-4076-2019 and respondent No. 2
in FAO-3659-2018 (respondent No. 1 in claim petition) and this issue is
accordingly decided against the appellant in FAO-4076-2019/claimant
Bajinder Singh.
15. So far as quantum of compensation granted by the learned
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Rupnagar is concerned, no finding is
required on issue No. 2, since the appellant in FAO-4076-2019/claimant
has failed to prove issue No. 1 to justify his claim under Section 166 of
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
With this observation, the appeal preferred by appellant in
FAO-3659-2018 - National Insurance Co. Ltd. is accepted and the
findings given in the impugned Award dated 23.02.2018 passed by learned
13 of 14
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:160763
2023:PHHC:160763
FAO-3659-2018 (O&M) with
FAO-4076-2019 (O&M) -14-
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Rupnagar are set aside and accordingly,
the claim petition filed by the claimant Bajinder Singh is dismissed.
In view of above observation, the FAO-4076-2019 preferred
by appellant/claimant Bajinder Singh is also dismissed.
Pending application(s), if any, in both the FAOs shall stand(s)
disposed off.
The copy of record received from the Tribunal be sent back to
the concerned quarter.
Photocopy of this order be placed on the file of another
connected case.
13.12.2023 (AMARJOT BHATTI)
lalit JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes
Whether Reportable: Yes
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:160763
14 of 14
