[Cites 13, Cited by 0]
Punjab-Haryana High Court
Mandeep Singh vs Sajjan Singh @ Chhaju And Ors on 22 April, 2026
FAO-2604-2021 (O&M) 1 of 13
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
111 FAO-2604-2021 (O&M)
Date of decision: 22.04.2026
Mandeep Singh ...Appellant(s)
Vs.
Sajjan Singh @ Chhaju and others ...Respondent(s)
CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA
Present:- Mr. Narinder S.Lucky, Advocate and
Ms. Amandeep Kaur, Advocate
for the appellant.
***
NIDHI GUPTA, J.
CM-11382-CII-2021
Prayer in this application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation
Act read with Section 151 CPC is for condonation of delay of 420 days in
filing the accompanying appeal.
2. The only reason cited by learned counsel for the
applicant/appellant in the abovesaid application for condonation of 420 days
delay in filing the appeal is as under:-
"3. That the appellant could not file the appeal before this
Hon'ble Court within limitation because the file was not handed
over to them by the Lower Court Counsel. He informed that the
certified copy has not been received and the appellant will be
intimated as and when same is received."
FAO-2604-2021 (O&M) 2 of 13
3. It is submitted that even despite reminders, learned counsel
before the Tribunal did not handover the file to the appellant as a result of
which, appeal could not be filed in time.
4. Heard.
5. The above said reason given on behalf of the appellant is vague
and does not constitute sufficient ground for condonation of inordinate
delay of 420 days. Application does not mention as to on which date, the
appellant received the documents from the Lower Court counsel. In fact, the
said reason reflects lackadaisical approach of the appellant in filing the
present Appeal.
6. Duty lies upon the appellant to be vigilant towards her rights to
pursue litigation diligently. The appellant cannot totally sleep upon the
matter after allegedly entrusting the same to their counsel. In this situation,
it would be apposite to refer to recent judgment of the Delhi High Court in
Moddus Media Pvt. Ltd. v. M/s. Scone Exhibition Pvt. Ltd., (Delhi): Law
Finder Doc Id # 887148 holding that:
"11. The litigant owes a duty to be vigilant of his rights and is
also expected to be equally vigilant about the judicial
proceedings pending in the court of law against him or initiated
at his instance. The litigant cannot be permitted to cast the
entire blame on the Advocate. It appears that the blame is being
attributed on the Advocate with a view to get the delay
condoned and avoid the decree. After filing the civil suit or
written statement, the litigant cannot go off to sleep and wake
up from a deep slumber after passing a long time as if the court
is storage of the suits filed by such negligent litigants. Putting
FAO-2604-2021 (O&M) 3 of 13
the entire blame upon the advocate and trying to make it out as
if they were totally unaware of the nature or significance of the
proceedings is a theory put forth by the
appellant/applicant/defendant company, which cannot be
accepted and ought not to have been accepted."
7. Moreover, it is cardinal principle of law that delay of each day
has to be explained. In this regard, reference may be made to a recent
judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 11794 of 2025
titled as Shivamma (Dead) by LRs Vs. Karnataka Housing Board and others,
2025 INSC 1104 decided on 12.09.2025, Law Finder Doc Id # 2777666,
wherein it is held that each day's delay has to be explained in a
mathematical manner which has not been done by the applicant-appellant.
No cogent reason or plausible explanation has been furnished by the
applicant for condonation of such an inordinate and unexplained delay in
filing the accompanying appeal. Moreover, condonation of such an
inordinate delay would be tantamount to declaring the law of limitation
obsolete/redundant, without any justification.
8. As such, no ground is made out for condoning inordinate delay
of 420 days. Present application accordingly stands dismissed.
FAO-2604-2021 (O&M)
The present appeal has been filed by the sole claimant seeking
enhancement of compensation of Rs.12,22,000/- awarded by the learned
Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Ambala (hereinafter referred to as "the
learned Tribunal") vide Award dated 05.07.2019 passed in MACP Case No.
DIVYANSHI 444 dated 30.11.2017 filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act,
FAO-2604-2021 (O&M) 4 of 13
(hereinafter referred to as "the Act"). The sole claimant, namely, Mandeep
Singh son of Jagir Singh son of Shri Chand is 32-year-old husband of the
deceased Harjit Kaur, who was 31/35 years old at the time of accident.
2. Vide the said Award dated 05.07.2019, Tribunal had also
disposed of connected MACP Case No. 446 dated 30.11.2017 titled as Jagir
Singh vs. Sajjan Singh alis Chhaju and others.
3. Brief facts of the case are that the learned Tribunal on the basis
of pleadings and evidence adduced before it concluded that the deceased-
Harjit Kaur had died due to the injuries suffered by her in a motor vehicular
accident that took place on 23.01.2017 at about 5:15 p.m. due to the rash
and negligent driving of a Truck bearing registration No. HR-37-A-2968
(hereinafter "the offending vehicle") being driven by respondent No.1;
owned by respondent No.2; and insured by respondent No.3. The above said
compensation was awarded along with interest @ 7.5% per annum. All the
respondents were held jointly and severally liable to pay the amount of
compensation.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant seeks enhancement of
compensation by submitting that income of the deceased has been taken on
the lower side as only Rs.6,000/- p.m. It is submitted that it was the clear
pleaded case of the appellant before the learned Tribunal that deceased was
doing work of stitching and was also running milk dairy and was earning
Rs.25,000/- p.m. However, learned Tribunal has totally ignored the evidence
led by the appellant in this regard and has assessed income of the deceased
on the lower side as only Rs.6,000/- p.m. It is further submitted that
FAO-2604-2021 (O&M) 5 of 13
multiplier is applied on the lower side. Appellant had clearly pleaded that
deceased was young lady of 28 years and was not having any child from the
wedlock as she was newly married but the learned Tribunal has determined
the age of the deceased to be between 31-35 years purely on guess work
and applied multiplier of 16 instead of 17.
5. It is accordingly prayed that the present Appeal be allowed;
impugned Award be modified; and compensation of Rs.30 lacs be awarded.
6. No other argument is raised on behalf of the appellant. I have
heard learned counsel and perused the case file. I find no merit in the
submissions advanced on behalf of the appellant.
7. Although it has been asserted on behalf of the appellant that
deceased was doing work of stitching and dairy farming and earning
Rs.25,000/- p.m. however, no evidence in this regard was produced by the
appellant. Only bald statements were made from the claimant's side in
respect of the alleged avocation and income of the deceased without any
evidence in support. Learned Tribunal has correctly observed that no
reliance could be placed upon the bald statements of the claimant witnesses
and that "If Harjit Kaur was actually doing the work of dairy and stitching of
clothes, some photographs, bill books etc. could have been placed on
record." Accordingly, Tribunal had relied upon judgment of this Court passed
in Paramjit Singh and another Vs. Dilbagh Singh and others, 2014 ACJ 1817
(P&H), and has assessed income of the deceased as Rs.6,000/- p.m. I find no
error in the same.
FAO-2604-2021 (O&M) 6 of 13
8. Further, age of the deceased was determined to be between
31/35 years. Accordingly, learned Tribunal had applied multiplier of 16 on
the basis of the judgment passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in "Sarla Verma
Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation" (2009) AIR (SC) 3104 Law Finder Doc ID #
188882. No deduction was made towards personal expenses. Accordingly,
learned Tribunal has calculated the compensation in the following manner: -
Sr. Heads Calculation (in Rs.)
No.
(i) Annual Income Rs.72,000/- (Rs.6,000 x
12)
(ii) Compensation after Rs.11,52,000/- (Rs.72,000
multiplier of 16 is applied x 16)
(iii) Loss of estate, loss of Rs.70,000/-
consortium and funeral
expenses
Total compensation Rs.12,22,000/-
awarded
9. I find no error in the compensation calculated.
10. From the above facts, it is clear that just and fair
compensation has been awarded to the appellant. Nothing whatsoever has
been shown to this Court that would merit enhancement of the
compensation granted to the appellant. No doubt Chapter-12 of the Act is
a beneficial legislation yet, as cautioned by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the
same cannot be allowed to be treated as a windfall or a source of profit.
Hon'ble Supreme Court in "State of Haryana Vs. Jasbir Kaur" Law Finder
Doc ID # 64043 and "Divisional Controller K.S.R.T.C. Vs. Mahadeva Shetty
and another" (2003) 7 SCC 197, has held that the amount of compensation
should be just and reasonable, it should neither be a bonanza nor a source
FAO-2604-2021 (O&M) 7 of 13
of profit but at the same time it should not be a pittance. In the case
of "General Manager, KSRTC Vs. Susamma Thomas & Others" 1994
Volume-II SCC 176, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that misplaced
sympathy, generosity and benevolence cannot be the guiding factor for
determining the compensation.
11. Even otherwise, I find no ground is made out for enhancement
of compensation on account of the reasons recorded here in below. The
pleaded case of the appellant in the Claim Petition as recorded in para 2 and
3 of the impugned Award, reads as follows: -
"2..............On 23.01.2017 Harjit Kaur alias Sona (since deceased)
alongwith her father-in-law Jagir Singh was coming from
Ambala City to her village Batrohan while sitting on the pillion
of the motorcycle bearing registration no.HR-01-E-9117 which
was being driven by Jagir Singh on the correct left side of the
road at a moderate speed. At about 5.15 p.m. when they
reached near village Ballana opposite Sangeet Palace, a truck
bearing registration no.HR-32-A-2968 (hereinafter referred to as
the offending vehicle) which was being driven by respondent
no.1 in a rash and negligent manner came from behind and
struck the motorcycle. It has been averred that due to the
impact of the accident, both occupants of the motorcycle fell
down on the road alongwith the motorcycle and suffered
multiple grievous and serious injuries. Harjit Kaur succumbed to
her injuries on the spot. It has been averred that the accident
took place on account of the rash and negligent driving of the
offending vehicle by respondent no.1. Regarding the incident, an
FIR no.22 dated 23.01.2017 under Sections 279, 337, 304-A IPC
was registered against respondent no.1 at police station Sadar
Ambala, District Ambala.
FAO-2604-2021 (O&M) 8 of 13
3. It has been averred that at the time of the accident, Harjit
Kaur was 28 years old. She was a household lady and was doing
tailoring work. She was also having four buffaloes and was
running a milk dairy in the village. She was, therefore, earning
Rs.25,000/- per month. It has been averred that no child was
born out of the wedlock of the claimant and Harjit Kaur. On
account of the death of of Harjit Kaur, the claimant had become
a widower and had been deprived of the proper care, love and
affection of his wife. It has been averred that a sum of
Rs.50,000/- was spent on the transportation of the deadbody,
funeral and last rites of the deceased. A sum of Rs.30,00,000/-
has been claimed as compensation."
12. The above said Jagir Singh eyewitness had appeared before the
learned Tribunal as CW2 and had deposed before the learned Tribunal that
the accident in question had taken place due to rash and negligent driving of
offending vehicle by respondent No.1. In respect of the accident in question,
FIR No. 0022 dated 23.01.2017 under Sections 279, 337, 304-A IPC was
registered at Police Station, Ambala on the statement of injured Jagir Singh.
Observation of learned Tribunal in this regard is contained in para 13 of the
impugned Award, which reads as follows: -
"13. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going
through the record of the case, this Court is of the considered
opinion that the claimants have been able to prove that the
accident, as a result of which Harjit Kaur expired and the
claimant Jagir Singh had suffered injuries, had taken place due
to the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by
respondent no.1. As per the claim petition, the accident took
place on 23.01.2017 at about 5.30 p.m. It has come on record
FAO-2604-2021 (O&M) 9 of 13
that the FIR Ex.C2 was registered on the same day i.e.
23.01.2017 at 8.33 p.m. on the statement of injured Jagir Singh.
Said injured-claimant Jagir Singh has appeared in the witness
box as CW2 and has deposed in detail about the manner in
which the accident took place. He was subjected to a lengthy
cross-examination, but nothing came in the same which could
have created any doubt in the case of the claimants.
Respondent no.1 is facing trial for having caused the accident as
is clear from the documents Ex.C4 and Ex.C5.................."
13. Thus, the appellant was held entitled for compensation on the
evidence given by Jagir Singh eyewitness who had testified with regard to
the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by the respondent
no.1.
14. Further, on the basis of statement/complaint made by Jagir
Singh, an FIR No. 0022 dated 23.01.2017 under Sections 279, 337, 304-A IPC
was registered at Police Station, Ambala against respondent no.1.
15. However, it is to be seen that in the criminal trial being faced by
respondent No.1 Sajjan Singh in the aforesaid FIR No. 0022 dated
23.01.2017, the complainant Jagir Singh had appeared as PW2 and had
turned hostile; as a result of which, respondent No.1 has been acquitted by
the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Ambala, vide judgment dated
15.11.2022. The relevant findings of learned Judicial Magistrate 1 st Class,
Ambala are contained in para 16 of the judgment dated 15.11.2022, which
read as under: -
"16. The star witness of the prosecution case is PW-2 Jagir
Singh, complainant/injured, who has categorically stated before
FAO-2604-2021 (O&M) 10 of 13
the Court that the accident was caused due to rash and
negligent driving of the accused. But during cross-examination,
he stated that it is incorrect that accident was caused with truck
No. HR 32A-2968. Again said truck No. is HR 37A-2968. The
statement of Mandeep Singh son of complainant is based on
hearsay evidence as he is not alleged eyewitness of the
accident. Though, PW8 Ram Karan has deposed that he is
owner of Truck No. 37A-2968. He had handed over the truck and
its documents alongwith accused to the police on 24.01.2017.
He also deposed that on 23.01.2017, Sajjan Singh caused
accident with his truck but during cross-examination, he
categorically stated that on 23.01.2017, no accident took place
with his truck No. HR 37-A-2968. Remaining witnesses are
official witnesses and doctors. Further perusal of statement
Ex.PW1/C made by the complainant Jagir Singh shows that he
had given the registration number of the offending truck as HR-
32A-2968 but during evidence, he has improvised this fact.
Further, as per the statement of complainant Jagir Singh PW2,
the truck hit his motorcycle from behind but perusal of
mechanical test report of motorcycle of the complainant reveals
that there is no damage to the back light, indicator etc. whereas
side has been damaged, whereas perusal of report of the truck
in question also reveals that there is no damage to the front side
of truck. There is dent to the left side of the accidental truck in
question. This casts doubt in the prosecution story and it cannot
be ruled out that he tried to overtake the truck in question as
per the stand of the accused. There is no independent witness to
corroborate the stand of the complainant."
16. Even the present claimant Mandeep Singh had appeared before
the learned JMIC as PW3 and had failed to implicate respondent No.1.
FAO-2604-2021 (O&M) 11 of 13
17. A bare reading of the above facts shows that before the learned
JMIC, the claimant side has turned turtle on its previous statement made
before the Tribunal. No doubt, proceedings under the Act have to be
decided on the preponderance of probabilities. However, this Court cannot
shut its eyes in an ostrich like manner to the starkly diametrically opposite
stance taken by the claimants' side in the criminal trial. Thus, no credence
can be attributed to the contrary statements made by the claimant
side before the learned Tribunal. It is to be seen that the appellants have
been held entitled to compensation by the Tribunal only on the basis of
statement made by the eyewitness Jagir Singh to the effect that the accident
in question had been caused due to the rash and negligent driving of the
offending vehicle by the respondent no.1. However, from the above noted
facts, it would appear that the claimant side has deposed falsely before the
Tribunal only with a view to get the compensation. It is my view that the said
act of the claimant side amounts to perjury.
18. I am supported in my view by a judgment of this Court in "Shri
Ram General Insurance Company Limited Vs. Jeeto Devi & Others" FAO-
2231-2014 decided on 03.12.2019, wherein it is held that: -
"(6) This Court cannot loose sight of the judgment
rendered by this Court in the case of United India Insurance
Company Limited versus Kamla Devi and others 2010(53) RCR
(Civil) 651, wherein it was specifically held that in case an eye
witness gives totally different version before the Court con-
ducting trial in criminal case from the statement made by the
said eye witness before the Tribunal, the testimony of such a
witness is unworthy of being accepted and the evidence should
be simply rejected. In fact, the learned Single Bench came down
FAO-2604-2021 (O&M) 12 of 13
heavily on such witness and held that the said witness is also li-
able for perjury."
19. This Court in abovesaid judgment in "United India Insurance
Company Limited Vs. Kamla Devi & Others" (P&H) : Law Finder Doc Id #
251230 has held that:
"5. It should still have been possible for the Tribunal to take a de-
cision uninfluenced by any decision that may have come before
the criminal court. The several decisions which have come about
on this issue are to the effect that a judgment in a criminal court
is not binding on the Tribunal; the non-filing of a FIR is not mater-
ial; even the fact of involvement of the vehicle as found by the
criminal court is not binding. While the Tribunal is competent to
assess the evidence which is brought before it and take an inde-
pendent decision, then the point that has to be seen is whether
there was any evidence worth its name before the Tribunal to
come a finding that the particular vehicle was involved in the ac-
cident. It can be either that the version of Sitar Mohd. cannot be
relied for he has contradicted himself wholesale with the version
given before the criminal court or looked for other evidence
which was placed before the Court. Alternatively if any explana-
tion had been given by the witness as to why he deposed false-
hood before the criminal court, even such an explanation could
have been accepted to enter a finding that the accident took
place only involving the particular insured's vehicle. In this case,
no explanation has been given by the witness as to why he stated
before the criminal court that he did not know which vehicle was
involved in the accident. He would, on the other hand, defy that
he ever made any such statement before the criminal court, ne-
cessitating the statement made before the criminal court to be
exhibited for contradiction before the Tribunal. It must be re-
FAO-2604-2021 (O&M) 13 of 13
membered 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."
20. Learned counsel for the appellant is unable to dispute or
controvert the aforesaid facts and findings. Therefore, no case is made out
for enhancement of compensation.
21. Thus, the present Appeal is accordingly dismissed on merits,
as well as on grounds of delay.
22. Pending application(s) if any also stand(s) disposed of.
22.04.2026 (NIDHI GUPTA)
Divyanshi JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
Whether reportable: Yes/No
