Punjab-Haryana High Court
New India Assurance Company Ltd vs Daljit Singh And Others on 6 March, 2025
Author: Alka Sarin
Bench: Alka Sarin
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:032301
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
130 FAO-1494-2025 (O&M)
Date of Decision : 06.03.2025
New India Assurance Company Ltd ....Appellant
VERSUS
Daljit Singh And Others ....Respondents
130-1 FAO-1500-2025 (O&M)
New India Assurance Company Ltd .... Appellant
VERSUS
Daljit Singh And Others ....Respondents
130-2 FAO-1494-2025 (O&M)
New India Assurance Company Ltd ....Appellant
VERSUS
Daljit Singh And Others ....Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ALKA SARIN
Present : Mr. Ashwani Talwar, Advocate for the appellant.
ALKA SARIN, J. (Oral)
1. Present order shall dispose off all the above-captioned appeals
filed by the Insurance Company challenging the awards separately passed by
the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Tarn Taran vide awards dated
25.10.2024.
1 of 9
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:032301
2. The brief facts relevant to the present lis are that on 21.10.2020
at about 04.30/05.00 am, deceased Narinder Singh along with his wife
Balwinder Kaur and daughter Rajbir Kaur was going from village Sarhali to
Brick kiln Dargapur on a cycle rehri for doing their work of labour. At about
04.30/05.00 am when they reached 2-3 killas ahead of Patti Maur, Sarhali, a
truck bearing registration No.RJ-07-GC-5767 (hereinafter referred to as the
'offending vehicle') came from the side of Harike and hit the cycle rehri
from behind. Narinder Singh, his wife Balwinder Kaur and daughter Rajbir
Kaur fell from the cycle rehri on the road and the offending vehicle ran over
all the three travelling on the cycle rehri. Narinder Singh and Rajbir Kaur
died at the spot. Balwinder Kaur was taken to Tarn Taran hospital, however,
on reaching the hospital she was also declared dead. The claim petitions
were filed by the claimants averring therein that the accident took place
solely due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle
i.e. respondent No.7 herein. FIR No.260 dated 21.10.2010 under Sections
304-A, 379 and 427 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 was recorded at Police
Station Sarhali, Taran Taran on the statement of Daljit Singh. The claim
petitions were contested by the Insurance Company, whereas the owner and
driver of the offending vehicle were proceeded against ex parte. Insurance
Company raised various preliminary objections. It was the stand taken that
there was violation of terms and conditions of the insurance policy. On
merits, factum of the accident was denied. It was further the stand taken that
the driver of the offending vehicle was not having any legal, valid and
2 of 9
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:032301
effective registration certificate, route permit and fitness certificate at the
time of the accident.
3. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, the following issues
were framed :
1. Whether the accident in question had taken place
due to rash and negligent driving of respondent no. 3
while driving the vehicle i.e. Truck bearing RC no. RJ-
07-GC-5767 and Narinder Singh had lost his life due to
his rash and negligent driving ? OPP
2. Whether the claimants are entitled to
compensation, if so then to what extent and from which
of the respondents ? OPP
3. Whether the claim petition is not maintainable ?
OPR
4. Whether there is breach of terms and condition of
insurance policy ? OPR
5. Relief.
4. The Tribunal, holding it to be a case of rash and negligent
driving, allowed the claim petitions and awarded the following
compensation :
MACP-63-2020
Sr. Heads Compensation Awarded
No.
1 Income assessed Rs.10,000/- per month (Rs.1,20,000/-
per annum)
2 Deduction towards personal (1/4th of Rs.1,20,000/-) = Rs.30,000/-
and living expenses
(dependency)
3 of 9
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:032301
3 Total income available for Rs.90,000/-
the family
4 Future prospects (add 10% 10% of Rs.90,000/- = 9,000/-
on account of future
earnings)
5 Multiplicand Rs.99,000/- (Rs.1,20,000 - Rs.30,000 +
Rs.9,000)
7 Loss of dependency Rs.10,89,000 (Rs.99,000 x 11)
8 Loss of Estate Rs.15,000/-
9 Loss of consortium Rs.40,000 x 5 = Rs.2,00,000/-
(Rs.40,000/- payable to
each of the petitioner)
10 Funeral expenses Rs.15,000/-
Total (6 to 9) Rs.13,19,000/-
MACP-64-2020
Sr. Heads Compensation Awarded
No.
1 Income assessed Rs.10,000/- per month (Rs.1,20,000/-
per annum)
2 Deduction towards personal (1/2 of Rs.1,20,000/-) = Rs.60,000/-
and living expenses
(dependency)
3 Total income available for Rs.60,000/-
the family
4 Future prospects (add 40% 40% of Rs.60,000/- = 24,000/-
on account of future
earnings)
5 Multiplicand Rs.84,000/- (Rs.1,20,000 - Rs.60,000 +
Rs.24,000)
7 Loss of dependency Rs.15,12,000 (Rs.84,000 x 18)
8 Loss of Estate Rs.15,000/-
9 Loss of consortium Rs.40,000 x 5 = Rs.2,00,000/-
(Rs.40,000/- payable to
each of the petitioner)
10 Funeral expenses Rs.15,000/-
Total (6 to 9) Rs.17,42,000/-
4 of 9
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:032301
MACP-59-2020
Sr. Heads Compensation Awarded
No.
1 Income assessed Rs.10,000/- per month (Rs.1,20,000/-
per annum)
2 Deduction towards personal (1/4th of Rs.1,20,000/-) = Rs.30,000/-
and living expenses
(dependency)
3 Total income available for Rs.90,000/-
the family
4 Future prospects (add 10% 10% of Rs.90,000/- = 9,000/-
on account of future
earnings)
5 Multiplicand Rs.99,000/- (Rs.1,20,000 - Rs.30,000 +
Rs.9,000)
7 Loss of dependency Rs.10,89,000 (Rs.99,000 x 11)
8 Loss of Estate Rs.15,000/-
9 Loss of consortium Rs.40,000 x 5 = Rs.2,00,000/-
(Rs.40,000/- payable to
each of the petitioner)
10 Funeral expenses Rs.15,000/-
Total (6 to 9) Rs.13,19,000/-
5. Aggrieved by the awards, present appeals have been preferred
by the Insurance Company.
6. Learned counsel for the appellant would contend that there is no
eye-witness to the said accident and that the offending vehicle is a planted
vehicle. It is further the contention that in the absence of any eye-witness
and in the absence of any evidence to show the involvement of the offending
vehicle, the Tribunal has erred in allowing the claim petitions.
7. Heard.
5 of 9
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:032301
8. In the present case, three people lost their lives in an accident
which took place on 21.10.2020 at about 04.30/05.00 am. The offending
vehicle in the present case bears registration number of Rajasthan and both
owner and driver of the offending vehicle belong to Bikaner, Rajasthan. The
claimants in the present case are labourers. Even their parents and sister,
who lost their lives in the accident, were labourers and were residents of
Tarn Taran. The argument of learned counsel for the appellant that present is
a planted case is rather farfetched inasmuch as there is nothing on record to
show that the claimants, who are residents of Tarn Taran and are casual
labourers, had any connection whatsoever with the owner or driver of the
offending vehicle, who are residents of Bikaner. On a query put by the Court
as to whether route permit and the driving licence etc. were verified by the
Insurance Company, learned counsel for the appellant has candidly admitted
that the same were got verified. Had it been a case where route permit for the
area was not granted to the said offending vehicle, the Court would have still
interfered in the award passed by the Tribunal. However, there is nothing on
record to show that the said offending vehicle did not have route permit to
ply on the road where the accident took place. No independent evidence was
bought on the record to disprove the involvement of the vehicle.
9. Further still, the argument of learned counsel for the appellant
that since there is no eye-witness hence, the Tribunal erred in passing the
award granting compensation is also deserved to be rejected. Admittedly, the
FIR in the present case was registered on the day of the accident itself i.e. on
21.10.2020 and as stated above, three people lost their lives. Keeping in
6 of 9
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:032301
view the instant lodging of the FIR in this case, there appears to be no
chance of false implication of the offending vehicle. Further, it is not
necessary that there would be an eye-witness in such type of motor vehicle
accident cases and due to that reason the award passed by the Tribunal
cannot be faulted with. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sunita & Ors.
vs. Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation & Anr. [2020 (13)
SCC 486] has held as under :
"It is thus well settled that in motor accident claim cases,
once the foundational fact, namely, the actual occurrence
of the accident, has been established, then the Tribunal's
role would be to calculate the quantum of just
compensation if the accident had taken place by reason
of negligence of the driver of a motor vehicle and, while
doing so, the Tribunal would not be strictly bound by the
pleadings of the parties. Notably, while deciding cases
arising out of motor vehicle accidents, the standard of
proof to be borne in mind must be of preponderance of
probability and not the strict standard of proof beyond
all reasonable doubt which is followed in criminal
cases."
10. Further, Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Anita Sharma
& Ors. vs. The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. & Anr. [2021 (1) RCR
(Civil) 200] has held as under :
"22. Equally, we are concerned over the failure of the
High Court to be cognizant of the fact that strict
7 of 9
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:032301
principles of evidence and standards of proof like in a
criminal trial are inapplicable in MACT claim cases. The
standard of proof in such like matters is one of
preponderance of probabilities, rather than beyond
reasonable doubt. One needs to be mindful that the
approach and role of Courts while examining evidence in
accident claim cases ought not to be to find fault with
non-examination of some best eyewitnesses, as may
happen in a criminal trial; but, instead should be only to
analyze the material placed on record by the parties to
ascertain whether the claimant's version is more likely
than not true. A somewhat similar situation arose in
Dulcina Fernandes v. Joaquim Xavier Cruz (2013) 10
SCC 646. wherein this Court reiterated that:
"7. It would hardly need a mention that the plea of
negligence on the part of the first respondent who
was driving the pickup van as set up by the
claimants was required to be decided by the
learned Tribunal on the touchstone of
preponderance of probabilities and certainly not
on the basis of proof beyond reasonable doubt.
(Bimla Devi v. Himachal RTC [(2009) 13 SCC 530
: (2009) 5 SCC (Civ) 189 : (2010) 1 SCC (Cri)
1101])"
(emphasis supplied)
23. The observation of the High Court that the author
of the FIR (as per its judgment, the owner-cum-driver)
had not been examined as a witness, and hence adverse
inference ought to be drawn against the appellant-
claimants, is wholly misconceived and misdirected. Not
only is the owner-cum-driver not the author of the FIR,
but instead he is one of the contesting respondents in the
8 of 9
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:032301
Claim Petition who, along with insurance company, is an
interested party with a pecuniary stake in the result of the
case. If the owner-cum-driver of the car were setting up a
defence plea that the accident was a result of not his but
the truck driver's carelessness or rashness, then the onus
was on him to step into the witness box and explain as to
how the accident had taken place. The fact that Sanjeev
Kapoor chose not to depose in support of what he has
pleaded in his written statement, further suggests that he
was himself at fault. The High Court, therefore, ought not
to have shifted the burden of proof."
11. In view of the above, I do not find any merit in the present
appeals and the same are accordingly dismissed. Pending applications, if
any, also stand disposed off.
( ALKA SARIN )
06.03.2025 JUDGE
jk
NOTE: Whether speaking/non-speaking: Speaking
Whether reportable: YES/NO
9 of 9
