Punjab-Haryana High Court
Pinky And Ors vs Raman Kumar Alias Koushal And Ors on 21 November, 2025
Page 1 of 7
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
211
FAO-1064-2014(O&M)
Date of decision: 21.11.2025
Pinky & Others
...Appellant(s)
Vs.
Raman Kumar @ Koushal & Others
...Respondent(s)
***
CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA
Present:- Ms. Jaswinder Kaur, Advocate for
Ms. Manjari Joshi, Advocate
for the appellants.
Mr. Suvir Dewan, Advocate
for respondent No.3.
***
NIDHI GUPTA, J.
IOIN-FAO-1064-2014
Registry has put up the present matter under the category of
IOIN. The main matter i.e. FAO-1064-2014 is taken up for arguments today
itself. IOIN stands disposed of accordingly.
FAO-1064-2014
Present appeal has been filed by claimants against the Award
dated 16.10.2013 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jalandhar
(hereinafter 'the learned Tribunal') whereby MACT No.2 of 10.01.2012 filed
by the claimants/appellants under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act
1 of 7
(hereinafter "the Act"), has been dismissed; while awarding Rs.50,000/-
under 'No Fault Liability'. The 3 claimants are the widow and 2 minor
children of deceased Chotte Lal, who was stated to be about 30 years old
at the time of accident.
2. The pleaded case of the appellants in the Claim Petition before
the Tribunal as recorded in Para 1 of the Award is that: -
"1. The claimants have filed this claim petition for
compensation under section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act,
1988 (here-in-after to be referred as the 'Act') with regard to
accidental death of Chotte Lal, being his legal representatives
against respondents. The brief facts of the case of the
claimants are that on 18.09.2009 at about 3:00 P.M., Chotte
Lal alongwith his brother Raj Kumar and his associate Vajinder
Singh came to Jalandhar to purchase bangles from Northern
Transport, Patel Chowk, Jalandhar. That they hired one three-
wheeler vehicle bearing No. PB-08-BJ-7125, driven by a clean
shaved young man aged about 28-29 years for proceeding to
Begowal on charges of Rs. 300/-. That they put their goods in
said three-wheeler and set out for village Begowal. That the
driver of three-wheeler was driving it in rash and negligent
manner despite their advise to the contrary. That when they
reached near Gobind Dham at about 3:25 P.M, three-wheeler
went out of control of its driver and twisted towards right side
of the road, resulting into injury to Chotte Lal. That Chotte Lal
died on the way to the hospital. That FIR No. 313 dated
19.09.2009 under Sections 279 IPC and 304-A IPC was
registered against respondent Raman Kumar @ Kaushal, who
2 of 7
was driver of Auto Rickshaw bearing No. PB-08-BJ-7125. That
claimant No.1 Pinky is the wife of Chotte Lal and claimant No.2
and claimant No.3 are the minor son and daughter of late
Chotte Lal and they have brought this claim petition being his
legal representatives. That deceased Chotte Lal was 30 years
of age at the time of his accidental death and was earning Rs.
15000/- per month. That accident took place at Gobind Dham,
P.S. Magsudan, Jalandhar on 18.09.2009 at about 3:00 P.M.
That accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of
respondent No.1, who was driving three-wheeler bearing No.
PB-08-BJ-7125 rashly and negligently. That respondent No.2
Nikka Ram was the owner of offending three-wheeler and
respondent No.3 Oriental Insurance Company Limited,
Jalandhar was its authorized insurer at the time of accident.
That claimants have, thus, claimed for compensation
regarding accidental death of Chotte Lal due to rash and
negligent driving of respondent No.1 and this claim petition
has been directed by them against respondents."
3. Upon appraisal of pleadings and oral & documentary evidence
adduced by the parties, the learned Tribunal had concluded that the
appellants had failed to prove that the accident in question was caused due
to the negligence of respondent No.1 in driving the auto rickshaw.
4. It is inter alia submitted by learned counsel for the appellants
that the only ground on which the Claim Petition has been dismissed by the
Tribunal, is that the eyewitness Umesh PW4 had not joined the Police
investigation; and therefore, negligence was not proved. It is however
3 of 7
contended that the facts as noted above speak for themselves inasmuch as
accident had taken place only on account of driver/respondent No.1. No
other vehicle was involved in the accident. Therefore, Claim Petition could
not have been dismissed.
5. It is further submitted that the Ld. M.A.C.T. has completely
ignored that after the discharge of the initial onus upon the claimants to
prove the fact of accident as well as the fact that no other vehicle was
involved in the accident and the death has taken place due to the overturning
of the 3 Wheeler, the onus had shifted upon the respondents to prove as to
how, the driver of the said vehicle was not negligent in driving the same
which has caused the accident and the death of Chhote Lal.
6. It is contended that the Ld. Tribunal has debarred the claimants
under the technical provisions of section 166 of the Act which require the
proving of negligence on account of the claimants; while ignoring that the
Act and the provisions of compensation incorporated therein are a welfare
legislation and the same have to be interpreted liberally. It is accordingly
prayed that the present appeal be allowed.
7. Ld. counsel for respondent No.3 vehemently opposes the
submissions made on behalf of the appellants and submits that the
impugned Award suffers from no error; and prays for dismissal of the appeal.
8. No other argument is made on behalf of the parties. I have
heard learned counsel and perused the case file in detail.
4 of 7
9. In proving negligence on part of respondent No.1, the
claimants/appellants are relying upon evidence of eyewitness Umesh PW4.
During the course of arguments, on a Court query as to how is PW4 known
to the Claimants, learned counsel for the appellants has informed that the
said eyewitness belongs to the same village as the claimants. However,
perusal of the file reveals that Umesh is the real brother of the deceased.
Thus, PW4 is not an independent witness.
10. The evidence of PW4 has also been rejected as being unreliable,
on the ground that he has not been cited in the Police Record as a witness;
neither is his name mentioned in the FIR (Ex.PW2/A). It is most interesting to
note that FIR has been registered by Raj Kumar, another brother of the
deceased, who, as per the claim petition was accompanying the deceased at
the time of accident. However, he has not been produced as a witness by the
Claimants. Claimants have only produced PW4, who is also not proved as
being resident of the village Begowal, where the claimants and deceased
were residing. In fact, he was shown to be resident of State of UP. PW4 was
also unable to inform as to who took the deceased to the Hospital from the
place of accident. These facts have been admitted by PW4 himself in his
cross-examination. Clearly therefore, PW4 was not present at the spot; and
was therefore, not competent to be a witness to the alleged negligence of
respondent No.1. He was not a reliable witness to establish that the accident
had taken place. No other witness was produced by the claimants; except for
5 of 7
the claimant No.1 herself, who appeared as PW3 and had admitted that she
had not seen the accident.
11. Moreover, PW3 herself was also unable to prove on record that
the deceased had purchased any bangles. Even further, RW4 Nikka Ram who
is owner of the alleged offending vehicle/Auto Rickshaw in question has also
denied the accident in totality. Even as per Post-Mortem Report (Ex.P1), the
name of Umesh Kumar is not mentioned as the person who had brought the
dead body of the deceased from the spot of accident.
12. It can also not be lost sight of that respondent No.1/driver has
been acquitted by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Jalandhar in the
present FIR No.313 dated 19.09.2009 registered under Sections 279, 304-A
IPC at Police Station Maqsudan, Jalandhar vide judgment dated 18.10.2011
(Ex.RA) (available at page 239 of the LCR). A perusal of the said judgment
shows that the FIR in question was registered on the statement of Raj
Kumar/brother of the deceased, who had appeared before the Magistrate as
PW4; and who had turned hostile. Relevant Para 11 of the said judgment of
acquittal is as under:-
"11. PW4 is complainant Raj Kumar, who has not supported the
prosecution version and has specifically stated that he does not
know the name of the driver of the three wheeler involved in the
accident nor he knows the number of the said vehicle. This
witness has further stated that accused present in the court
never drove the vehicle in rash and negligent manner nor he
6 of 7
made any statement before the police. The police has obtained
his signatures on the blank papers. Similarly, Pw5 Vajinder has
stated that accused present in the court never drove the vehicle
in rash and negligent manner. He has further stated that he
never made any statement before the police. Both these
witnesses were declared hostile and were allowed to be cross-
examined by the learned APP for the State after seeking the
permission from the Court but even after lengthy cross-
examination, nothing favorable to the prosecution came out."
13. As noted above, Raj Kumar complainant has not been
produced by the claimants before this Court. As per the above said
judgment, there was another eyewitness namely Vajinder, who had also
turned hostile as noted in Para 11 above; and who was also not produced
before the Tribunal. The Claimants have only produced PW4 Umesh before
the Tribunal, who was not present at the spot. Needless to say, judgment
of acquittal would not in itself be sufficient for dismissal of the Claim
Petition, however, on a total assessment of the above-said facts, I find no
ground is made out to interfere in the impugned Award. Present appeal
accordingly stands dismissed.
14. Pending application(s) if any also stand(s) disposed of.
21.11.2025 (Nidhi Gupta)
Sunena Judge
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
Whether reportable: Yes/No
7 of 7
