[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Punjab-Haryana High Court
Harinder Singh vs Jasbir Singh And Ors on 12 December, 2025
FAO-545-2004 (O&M)
and other connected cases 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
1. FAO-545-2004 (O&M)
Harinder Singh
..Appellant
Versus
Jasbir Singh @ Chhana and others
..Respondents
2. FAO-546-2004 (O&M)
Des Raj
..Appellant
Versus
Jasbir Singh @ Chhana and others
..Respondents
3. FAO-702-2004 (O&M)
Mange Ram
..Appellant
Versus
Jasbir Singh @ Chhana and others ..Respondents
4. FAO-703-2004 (O&M)
Gulab Singh
..Appellant
Versus
Jasbir Singh @ Chhana and others ..Respondents
Reserved on :10.12.2025
Pronounced on: 12.12.2025
Uploaded on 15.12.2025
Whether only operative part of the judgment is
pronounced or the full judgment is pronounced: Operative part/full judgment
CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANDEEP PANNU
FAO-545-2004
Present:- Mr.B.S.Mamli, Advocate for the appellant
Mr.R.C.Kapoor, Advocate for
respondent no.4/Insurance Company
1 of 6
::: Downloaded on - 16-12-2025 03:22:27 :::
FAO-545-2004 (O&M)
and other connected cases 2
FAO-546-2004
Present :- Mr.B.S.Mamli, Advocate for the appellant
Mr.R.C.Kapoor, Advocate for
respondent no.3/Insurance Company
FAO-702-2004
Present:- Mr.B.S.Mamli, Advocate for the appellant
Mr.R.C.Kapoor, Advocate for
respondent no.4/Insurance Company
FAO-703-2004
Present:- Mr.B.S.Mamli, Advocate for the appellant
Mr.R.C.Kapoor, Advocate for
respondent no.4/Insurance Company
MANDEEP PANNU, J.
1. By this common judgment, four connected First Appeals
against Order i.e FAO-545 of 2004, FAO-546 of 2004, FAO-702 of
2004 and FAO-703 of 2004 shall stand disposed of.
2. The four claim petitions filed on behalf of the claimants
(appellants herein), arising out of the same accident dated 02.12.2001,
were dismissed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ambala
(hereinafter referred to as 'Tribunal') by a consolidated award dated
05.11.2003. Hence, the present appeals have been filed for setting
aside the aforesaid award and grant of compensation.
3. The brief facts of the case are that on 02.12.2001, at
about 7:30 p.m., Harinder Singh was driving his motorcycle with
Gulab Singh as the pillion rider, proceeding towards Village Milk
Sekhan. When they reached near the village, a cyclist with a lady
seated on the carrier was coming from the opposite direction and was
2 of 6
FAO-545-2004 (O&M)
also heading towards Village Milk Sekhan. At that moment, a tractor
bearing registration No. HR-01-F/6445, being driven by Jasbir Singh
@ Chhanna in a rash and negligent manner, came from the opposite
direction and hit the cyclist, causing injuries to him as well as to the
lady sitting on the carrier. In an attempt to flee, the tractor then hit the
motorcycle of Harinder Singh, causing serious injuries to Gulab Singh
and minor injuries to Harinder Singh. As a result of this accident,
four separate claim petitions were filed:
(i) Claim Petition No. 27 dated 16.01.2002 by Harinder Singh for the
injuries suffered by him;
(ii) Claim Petition No. 28 dated 16.01.2002 by Mange Ram (the
cyclist) for the injuries suffered by him;
(iii) Claim Petition No. 29 dated 16.01.2002 by Des Raj for the death
of his mother, Manbhari (the lady sitting on the carrier); and
(iv) Claim Petition No. 30 dated 16.01.2002 by Gulab Singh for the
injuries suffered by him in the accident.
4. On notice being issued, all the respondents contested the
claim petitions before the Tribunal by filing their separate written
statements. Thereafter, Tribunal framed the following issues:-
"1. Whether Manbhari died and other claimants
Mange Ram, Gulab Singh and Harinder Singh
received injuries due to rash and negligent driving
of tractor no. HR-01-F/6445 by its driver-
respondent no.1? OPP
2. To what amount of compensation, the claimants
are entitled to and from whom? OPP.
3. Whether respondents are not liable to pay any
compensation due to the preliminary objections
taken in the written statement? OPR
3 of 6
FAO-545-2004 (O&M)
4. Relief."
5. The Tribunal decided issue No. 1 against the claimants on
the ground that they failed to discharge the onus of proving that the
accident in question occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of
tractor No. HR-01-F/6445 by respondent No. 1. Consequently, the
claimants were held not entitled to any compensation, resulting in the
dismissal of all four claim petitions.
6. Learned counsel for the appellants/claimants contends
that the findings of the Tribunal are erroneous and liable to be set
aside. The claimants have duly proved that the accident resulted in the
death of Manbhari and caused injuries to three of them, namely
Mange Ram, Harinder Singh, and Gulab Singh. He further submits
that the claimants are entitled to reasonable compensation under the
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
7. Per contra, learned counsel for the Insurance Company
submits that the award passed by the Tribunal is well-reasoned and
has been rendered after taking into consideration the entire evidence.
8. Having considered the submissions addressed and after
going through the impugned award as well as the material placed on
record, I am of the considered view that the learned Tribunal has
rightly dismissed the claim petitions. The Tribunal, on a meticulous
appreciation of the testimonies of PW-7 Mange Ram, PW-8 Gulab
Singh, PW-13 Harinder Singh and the FIR, has correctly held that the
involvement of the alleged offending tractor in the accident is not
4 of 6
FAO-545-2004 (O&M)
proved. The contradictions in the statements of the material witnesses,
the admitted fact that none of them knew the tractor driver, the
absence of the tractor number in the FIR, the explanation of the
supposed source of information being wholly unreliable, coupled with
the mechanical report indicating that the tractor had no damage
whatsoever, fully justify the conclusion that the vehicle was
subsequently introduced only for the purpose of seeking
compensation. The Tribunal has also noticed that no corroborative
evidence was led to connect the tractor with the accident, and the
testimony of PW-6 Jaswinder Singh was found to be wholly
untrustworthy as his name does not figure in any earlier record or in
the list of witnesses. It is also significant to note, as rightly observed
by the learned Tribunal, that the reliance placed by the claimants on
the alleged disclosure made by Manbari regarding the name of the
tractor driver is wholly untenable. The evidence of PW-13 Harinder
Singh and PW-7 Mange Ram themselves reveals that Manbari had
died at the spot of the accident. Once claimants Harinder Singh and
Mange Ram categorically admitted that she succumbed to her injuries
immediately at the site, then plea of Harinder Singh that he came to
know about the name of the tractor driver from Manbari in the
hospital becomes inherently false and fabricated. This contradiction
goes to the root of the case and demolishes the claim that the
identification of the offending tractor or its driver originated from any
reliable source. The Tribunal has rightly concluded that such an
5 of 6
FAO-545-2004 (O&M)
explanation, being impossible in the face of admitted facts, lends
strong support to the finding that the vehicle was subsequently
introduced only with a view to claim compensation. This
circumstance, read with the absence of tractor number in the FIR, lack
of credible eyewitness testimony, and the mechanical report showing
no damage to the tractor, fully justifies dismissal of the claim
petitions. In this factual background, the finding returned by the
Tribunal that the claimants have failed to discharge the onus of
proving the involvement of the tractor in the accident is fully borne
out from the evidence. No perversity or illegality has been pointed out
in the reasoning adopted by the Tribunal. Consequently, the impugned
award dated 05.11.2003 warrants no interference and the present
appeals are hereby dismissed.
9. All the pending miscellaneous applications, if any, are
also disposed of.
12.12.2025 (MANDEEP PANNU)
rekha JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether reportable Yes/No
6 of 6
