[Cites 11, Cited by 0]

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Palwinder Kaur vs Daljit Singh And Ors. on 23 April, 2026

                     FAO-1017-2023 (O&M)                                                 1 of 12


                               IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

                     118                                          FAO-1017-2023 (O&M)
                                                                 Date of decision: 23.04.2026

                     Palwinder Kaur                                         ...Appellant(s)

                                                                 Vs.

                     Daljit Singh and others                                ...Respondent(s)



                     CORAM:          HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA

                     Present:-       Mr. Prateek Pandit, Advocate
                                     for the appellant.

                                           ***
                     NIDHI GUPTA, J.

CM-4011-CII-2023

Prayer in this application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation

Act read with Section 151 CPC is for condonation of delay of 91 days in filing

the accompanying appeal.

2. Heard.

3. For the reasons mentioned in the application which is duly

supported by an affidavit of the applicant/appellant, the same is allowed

and delay of 91 days in filing the accompanying appeal is condoned.

FAO-1017-2023 (O&M)

The present appeal has been filed by the sole claimant seeking

enhancement of compensation of Rs.12,75,000/- awarded by the learned

Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kapurthala (hereinafter "the learned

Tribunal") vide Award dated 19.07.2022 passed in MACP Case No. 53 dated

FAO-1017-2023 (O&M) 2 of 12

11.09.2019 filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act,(hereinafter

referred to as "the Act"). The sole claimant is the 44-year-old mother of the

deceased Harpreet Kaur, who was 19 years old at the time of accident.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the learned Tribunal on the basis

of pleadings and evidence adduced before it concluded that the deceased-

Harpreet Kaur had died due to the injuries suffered by her in a motor

vehicular accident that took place on 08.07.2019 at about 5:40 p.m. due to

the rash and negligent driving of a Fortuner Car bearing registration No. PB-

09-Z 0015 (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.

3. 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.8,777/- p.m. It is submitted that deceased was

about 20 years of age and was working as Receptionist in LPU, Phagwara and

was drawing a salary of Rs. 10,000/- per month. The salary slip has been

proved on record as Exhibit P-4. However, Ld. MACT has ignored the said

evidence and taken the income of the deceased as that of an unskilled

labourer as per minimum wages for the said year i.e. Rs. 8,777/- per month.

It is further submitted that even future prospects have been added on the

lower side. The Tribunal has not awarded any compensation towards pain

and suffering. Inadequate compensation has been awarded under the heads

FAO-1017-2023 (O&M) 3 of 12

of funeral expenses, loss of estate, and loss of love and affection. Even no

filial consortium has been awarded.

4. It is accordingly prayed that the present Appeal be allowed; and

the impugned Award be modified.

5. 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.

6. A perusal of the record shows that no doubt it was the pleaded

case of the appellant before the learned Tribunal that deceased was working

as Receptionist in LPU, Chheru, Tehsil Phagwara and was earning Rs.10,000/-

p.m. Appellant had even placed on record salary slip of the deceased as

Ex.P4. However, no reliance could be placed upon the said salary slip as

appellant had not examined any witness from LPU to prove the said alleged

salary slip. Thus, the alleged employment and said salary slip of the

deceased were not proved in accordance with law. Learned Tribunal in para

14 of the impugned Award had further noted that "Moreover, in this salary

slip it has been only mentioned that she was working with them.".

Accordingly, learned Tribunal had relied upon judgment of Hon'ble Supreme

Court passed in Neeta Vs. Divisional Manager, Maharashtra State Road

Transport Corporation, Kohlapur (2015) 3 SCC 590 and had assessed income

of the deceased as Rs.8,777/- p.m. as payable to an unskilled labourer on the

basis of relevant Minimum Wage Notification. I find no error in the same.

Moreover, ld. counsel for the appellant has been unable to distinguish the

abovesaid judgment and no contrary judgment has been produced.

FAO-1017-2023 (O&M) 4 of 12

7. Further, age of the deceased was determined to be 19 years old

at the time of accident on the basis of her Aadhar Card; wherein her year of

birth has been mentioned as 2000. Learned Tribunal had further made

addition of 30% towards future prospects; thereby calculating total income

to be Rs.1,36,921/- (Rs.8777 x 12 + Rs.31,597). As the deceased was

bachelor, learned Tribunal had correctly made deduction of 50% towards

personal expenses; thereby calculating annual dependency to be Rs.68,460/-

p.a. (Rs.1,36,921-Rs.68,461). Keeping in view the age of the deceased,

multiplier of 18 had been correctly applied; thereby calculating dependency

of Rs.12,32,280/- (Rs.68460 x 18). Learned Tribunal had further made

addition of Rs.27,754/- towards medical expenses on the basis of medical

bills Ex.P10 to Ex.P18 which were proved by CW2 Amarjit Singh. Under the

conventional heads, learned Tribunal has awarded only an amount of

Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenses; thereby granting total compensation

of Rs.12,75,034/-, rounded off to Rs.12,75,000/-.

8. Thus, at best, as per structured formula enunciated by the

Hon'ble Apex Court, the impugned Award may be modified in respect of the

consortium to be paid to the appellant. Firstly, in terms of judgment of the

Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP No.13931 of 2017 titled as "New India

Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Vinish Jain & Others" Law Finder Doc ID #

977386, has held that where difference in compensation is about 4 to 5 per

cent only, it does not warrant interference by this Court as, such variation in

compensation is within permissible limits.

FAO-1017-2023 (O&M) 5 of 12

9. Even otherwise, I have given my very thoughtful consideration

to the submissions and contentions advanced on behalf of the appellant. I

find that in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case no

ground is made out to enhance the compensation, for the reasons given

hereinbelow.

10. The pleaded case of the appellant in the claim petition as

recorded by the Tribunal in para 2 of the impugned Award is as follows: -

"2. Filtering the necessary details, the facts which are requisite to be stated herein are that on 08.07.2019, deceased Harpreet Kaur was coming to her village after finishing her job at LPU village Chheru, Tehsil Phagwaa, District Kapurthala. Around 5.40 P.M, when she was crossing the GT road on foot, meanwhile from the side of Jalandhar one vehicle bearing registration No. PB 0-9 Z 0015 make Fortuner, which was being driven by respondent No.1 Daljit Singh in a rash and negligent manner and with high speed came and struck against the deceased, as a result of which the deceased got multiple injuries and she was brought to Civil Hospital, Phagwara and from where she was referred to Johan Hospital, Jalandhar, where she died due to the injuries on 09.07.2019. It was further submitted that the accident had taken place due to sole; rash and negligent driving of the offending Car bearing registration no. PB-09-Z-0015. Even, FIR No. 70 dated 08.07.2019, under section 279/304-A IPC was registered at Police Station Sadar, Phagwara, District Kapurthala against the driver of the offending vehicle, on the basis of statement of Palwinder Kaur wife of Surinder Pal, being eye witness of the accident. It was further submitted that at the time of death of Harpreet Kaur, she was 20 years of age, working in LPU, Chheru, Tehsil Phagwara, and also doing the

FAO-1017-2023 (O&M) 6 of 12

stitching work and was earning of Rs. 20,000/- per month. In the end, it was submitted that claimant, who is mother of deceased Harpreet Kaur be granted compensation to the tune of Rs. 75 lakhs."

11. The claimant was eyewitness of the accident in question. On the

basis of the statement made by the claimant, in respect of the accident

dated 08.07.2019, an FIR No.70 dated 09.07.2019 under Sections 304-A, 279

IPC was registered at Police Station Sadar, Phagwara. The claimant had

appeared before the learned Tribunal as CW1 and had deposed through her

Affidavit Ex.CW1/A. The evidence of the appellant before the learned

Tribunal is in para 10 of the impugned Award, which reads as follows: -

"10. To establish the fact that Harpreet Kaur died in a motor vehicular accident caused by respondent no.1 while driving Fortuner Car bearing registration no. PB-09-Z 0015, CW-1 Palwinder Kaur being the author of the FIR through her affidavit Ex.CWI/A, has reiterated entirely the same version regarding the manner in which the accident took place, as stated by the claimant in her claim petition, as she has specifically stated that on 08.07.2019 her daughter deceased Harpreet Kaur was returning to her village after finishing her job at LPU, Tehsil Phagwara, and when she was crossing the G.T road on foot, meanwhile from the Jalandhar side, one vehicle bearing registration No. PB 09 Z 0015 make Fortuner which was being driven by respondent Daljit Singh in a very rash and negligent manner came and struck against the deceased Harpreet Kaur, as a result of which she received multiple injuries and died in the hospital. CW-1 Palwinder Kaur, being author of the FIR no.0070 dated 08.07.2019, proved the same as Ex. P2. This witness was

FAO-1017-2023 (O&M) 7 of 12

cross examined at length on behalf of counsel for respondents, but her testimony could not be shattered and she remained firm on her stand."

12. Thus, the ld. Tribunal held the appellant entitled for

compensation on the basis of evidence given by her with regard to the rash

and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by the respondent no.1.

13. However, it is to be seen that in the criminal trial being faced by

respondent No.1 Daljit Singh in the aforesaid FIR No. 70 dated 09.07.2019,

the complainant Palwinder Kaur had appeared as PW2 and had turned

hostile and had refused to identify respondent No.1; as a result of which,

respondent No.1 has been acquitted by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st

Class, Phagwara, vide judgment dated 26.11.2019. The relevant findings of

learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Phagwara are contained in para 15 of

the judgment dated 26.11.2019, which read as under: -

"15. As the complainant PW-2 has turned hostile, therefore, I have no hesitation to hold that the prosecution failed to establish its case against the accused beyond the shadow of reasonable doubt. The identity of the accused person as the person who drove offending car bearing RC no. PB-09-Z-0015 make Toyota Fortuner has gone unproved on record. From the evidence on the record it cannot be held that accused present in the court have committed any offence as alleged by prosecution."

14. A bare reading of the above facts shows that before the learned

JMIC, the claimant side has turned turtle on its statement made before the

FAO-1017-2023 (O&M) 8 of 12

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 claimant in the criminal trial. Clearly, 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 appellant has been held entitled to

compensation by the Tribunal only on the basis of statement made by the

eyewitness-appellant 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.

15. Learned counsel for the appellant has strongly opposed the

aforesaid view taken by this Court and has vehemently contended that in

terms of judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kuncham Lavanya and

others v.s Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. And another Diary No.

44210 of 2019, it has been held that negligence before the Tribunal is

determined on the preponderance of probabilities and not beyond

reasonable doubt. It is submitted that in the said judgment, it has been held

that "Even if acquittal occurred in a criminal case, the findings of negligence

in the motor accident claim remained valid....".

16. However, it may first be pointed out that the said judgment of

the Hon'ble Supreme Court is not applicable to the present case being

FAO-1017-2023 (O&M) 9 of 12

distinguishable on facts and law in as much as in the said case of Kuncham

Lavanya (supra), complainant/claimant had not turned hostile. In the said

case, the Hon'ble Apex Court had only made general observation that cases

before the Tribunal are to be decided on the preponderance of probabilities.

As has already been observed hereinabove by this Court, there is no dispute

with regard to the said principal.

17. Learned counsel for the appellant has then relied upon

judgments of this Court passed in FAO-2767-2018 titled as National

Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Suman and others, decided on 30.08.2018; and FAO-

4426-2019 titled as Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Malkiat Kaur alias

Malkiyat Kaur and others, decided on 22.08.2019; wherein it has been held

that even if eyewitness has turned hostile during course of criminal

proceedings, learned Tribunal is required to adjudge the case on the basis of

the evidence produced before it and not on the testimony given in criminal

Court. I am in respectful disagreement with the aforesaid view taken by my

worthy predecessors.

18. I am supported in my view by most recent judgment of Hon'ble

Supreme Court in Rajamma v. M/s Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd.,

(SC) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2784588 decided on 26.09.2025; wherein while

upholding that "......proof of accident in motor accident claims is based on

the preponderance of probabilities", it has simultaneously been held that

"...... Suspicion on FIR registration and contradictions in witness testimony

can lead to dismissal of claims. ......... Testimony of eyewitness deemed

unreliable due to contradictions and lack of supporting evidence. ......... FIR

FAO-1017-2023 (O&M) 10 of 12

and witness statements must be consistent and credible to establish the

involvement of the offending vehicle and the negligence of the driver." Thus,

the Hon'ble Supreme Court has categorically enunciated that in case of

contradiction in witness testimony, claim petition is liable to be dismissed. In

the present case, as noted above, there is distinct contradiction in the case

set up by the appellant before the Tribunal, and as projected by her before

the learned JMIC.

19. This Court in "Shri Ram General Insurance Company Limited

Vs. Jeeto Devi & Others" FAO-2231-2014 decided on 03.12.2019, 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 heavily on such witness and held that the said witness is also li- able for perjury."

20. 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

FAO-1017-2023 (O&M) 11 of 12

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- 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."

FAO-1017-2023 (O&M) 12 of 12

21. Notwithstanding the misconceived arguments made by learned

counsel for the appellant, this Court is unable to reward the claimant and

finds it unconscionable that claimant's side merely with a view to procure

compensation gives false statement alleging involvement of the offending

vehicle and the negligence of respondent No.1 before the learned Tribunal.