[Cites 11, Cited by 0]
Punjab-Haryana High Court
Gurinder Pal Singh vs Surjit Singh And Others on 29 April, 2026
236
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
FAO No.4755 of 2019 (O&M)
Date of decision: 29.04.2026
Gurinder Pal Singh
...Appellant
Versus
Surjit Singh and others
...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA
Present :- Mr. Bhupinder Singh, Advocate
for the appellant.
Ms. Kanchan Sidhu, Advocate
for respondent No.3-Insurance
Insurance Company.
*****
NIDHI GUPTA,
GUPTA J.
CM No.15942-CII
Prayer in this application filed under Section 5 of the
Limitation Act is for condonation of delay of 140 days in filing the present
appeal.
2. Only reasons given by the applicant
applicant-appellant seeking
condonation of inordinate delay of 140 days is in para 3 of the present
application which reads as follows: -
"3. That the appellant is very poor person and was not
able to pay the fee of the counsel to be engaged to file the
appeal before this Hon'ble High Court. Thereafter,
appellant arranged the amount to pay the counsel's fee
FAO No.4755 of 2019 (O&M) -2-
and approached the counsel for the appellant for filing the
appeal. That due to the abovesaid reason, the delay of 140
days has been occurred."
3. The aforesaid reason submitted by the applicant
applicant-appellant is
cryptic, vague and general and does
do not constitute sufficient cause for
condonation of inordinate delay in filing the present application. Despite
Court query, ld. Counsel for the applicant is unable to inform this Court as
to on which date the compensation amount of Rs.5 lacs was received by the
applicant. Therefore, the applicant is unable to substantiate his plea that he
did not have sufficient funds for filing the appeal within limitation.
4. 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 applican
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.
5. As such, no ground is made out for condoning inordinate
delay of 140
0 days. Present application accordingly stands dismissed.
FAO No.4755 of 2019 (O&M) -3-
The present appeal has been filed by the injured-claimant
seeking enhancement of compensation of Rs.
Rs.5 lacs awarded by the learned
Motor Accidents
Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kurukshetra (hereinafter referred to as
"the learned Tribunal") vide Award dated 21.
21.11.2018 passed in MACP
Case No.441
441 dated 19.09.2017
19.09.2017 filed under Sections 166, 140 and 141 of the
Motor Vehicles Act, (hereinafter referred to as "the Act").
2. Brief facts of the case are that the learned Tribunal upon
appraisal of the pleadings, and the oral and
and documentary evidence adduced
by the parties, had concluded that that the appellant had suffered injuries in
a motor vehicular accident that had taken place on 226.02.2017 due to the
rash and negligent driving of a Truck bearing registration No.
No.HR-37D-
5818 (hereinafter "the offending vehicle") being driven by respondent
No.1; owned by respondent No.2; and insure
insured by respondent No.3. The
abovesaid
said compensation of Rs. 5 lacs has been 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 the appellant had remained hospitalised
from 27.02.2017 till 06.03.2017 i.e for a period of 08 days
days. In the accident
dated 26.02.2017,
26.02.2017 the appellant has also suffered 24% permanent disability.
Prior to the accident, the appellant was working as an agriculturalist
however
er due to his disability, the appellant is unable to do his previous
work. It is submitted that the appellant has still not recovered as his right
FAO No.4755 of 2019 (O&M) -4-
leg was badly injured and he has become totally disabled after the accident.
Yet, nothing has been awarded towards
towards future medical expenses. It is
submitted that in the aforesaid facts and circumstances oof the case very
meagre compensation has been awarded to the appellant.
4. Learned counsel further contends that the appellant had spent
Rs. 14 lacss on his treatment, medicines operation etc.; more than
Rs.50,000/- on transportation and on special
pecial died etc. It is contended that
therefore the appellant is entitled to get Rs.06 lacs as compensation for the
mental pain, agony and trauma suffered by the aappellant due to the fatal
accident.
5. Learned counsel further submits that an awarding the meagre
compensation the learned Tribunal has failed to appreciate that the
compensation,
appellant had remained hospitalized during which period one attendant had
also remained with him to assist
a him to do the daily activities. However,
nothing has been awarded by the learned Tribunal towards Attendant
Charges.
6. It is further submitted that at the time of accident, the
appellant was only 26 years old and was an agriculturalist and was also
running a milk dairy and earning Rs.25,000/
Rs.25,000/- per month. Yet, the learned
Tribunal has taken the monthly income of the appellant to be only
Rs.8280/-per
er month which deserves to be enhanced. Even interest is on the
lower side. It is accordingly prayed that the present appeal be allowed and
the compensation be enhanced.
FAO No.4755 of 2019 (O&M) -5-
7. Per contra learned counsel for respondent No.3
No.3-Insurance
Company vehemently opposes
opposes the submission
submissions advanced on behalf of the
appellant and submits that as no evidence has been led by the appellant to
prove his alleged income or avocation. Demand of the appellant of medical
expenses to the tune of Rs.14 lacs is highly exaggerated and unjustified as
the appellant has produced bills only for an amount of about Rs.2,14,000/-
which has been duly reimbursed to him.
8. It is further submitted that it is misleading for the appellant to
contend that he had suffered 24% permanent disability in the accident in
question. Itt is pointed out that the said disability was qua a particular limb;
and the said disability qua the whole body is calculated to be 17%
approximately It is further submitted
approximately. tted that in terms of judgment of the
Gauhati
hati High Court
C in M/s Liberty General Insurance Ltd. vs. Dipak
Baishya and 2 Ors. Law Finder Doc Id # 2863883
2863883, it has been held that
functional disability has been to be calculated in relation to the loss of
earning capacity. It is contended that in the present case the appellant has
failed to prove any income. Consequentially
Consequentially, he is not entitled to any loss
of future earnings.
earnings Yet, learned Tribunal has awarded an amount of
Rs.2,70,256/-- towards the loss of earning capacity
capacity. Accordingly, it is
prayed that the present appeal
app be dismissed.
9. No other argument is raised on behalf of learned counsel for
the parties.. I have heard ld. counsel and perused the case file in detail. I
find no merit in the submissions advanced on behalf of the appellant.
FAO No.4755 of 2019 (O&M) -6-
10. As noted above, it was the pleaded case of the appellant before
learned Tribunal that prior to the acciden
accident, he was working as an
agriculturalist and running a milk dairy and eearning Rs. 25,000/- per
month. However, no evidence whatsoever has been produced by the
appellant to prove his said contention. Accordingly, in the absence of any
evidence the learned Tribunal has correctly assessed income of the
appellant as Rs.8280/-
Rs.8280/ per month on the basis of the Minimum Wages as
applicable in the State of Haryana in
in the year 2017. I find no error in the
same.
11. Further although the appellant claimed to be 26 years old at
the time of accident however,
however he has failed to produce any proof of age.
Accordingly, on the basis of the disability certificate, treatment reco
record, as
also the medical report Exhibit P-9
P 9 wherein age of the appellant is
mentioned as 32 years, the learned Tribunal had determined the age of the
appellant as 32 years. So,, the learned Tribunal had applied multiplier of 16.
12. As regards the disability suffered by the appellant, PW5 Dr.
Anoop
p Mehta has deposed that the appellant had suffered 24% disability in
his right leg/limb.
leg/lim The said fact was also proved from the disability
certificate
rtificate Exhibit P-24.
P However, during his cross
cross-examination, PW-5 Dr.
Anoop
p Mehta had admitted that the said disability of 24% was qua the
particular limb and not qua the whole body; and if the said disability is
assessed qua the whole body the same will reduce by 30%. Accordingly,
the Tribunal had assessed
assessed the disability of the appellant qua the whole body
as 17% approximately. I find no error in the same as well. Thus, future
FAO No.4755 of 2019 (O&M) -7-
earning of the appellant was calculated by the learned Tribunal as
Rs.16,891/-.. Moreover, Learned counsel for the appellant has failed to
show as to how the said disability has impeded work of the appellant.
13. Further although the appellant ha
has claimed that he had spent
Rs.14 lacs on his treatment however,
however the said claim is fantastical. No
evidence to this effect has brought on record. The learned Tribunal had
examined in detail all the medical bills and other medical record Exhibit P
P-
9 to P-23
23 produced by the appellant. As per which, the appellant had spen
spent
an amount of Rs.2,13,592/-
Rs.2,13,592/ on his treatment; which was rounded off to
Rs.2,14,000/-- by the Tribunal. Further the Tribunal has awarded total
compensation of Rs.4,99,256/-
Rs.4,99 (rounded off to Rs.5 lac
lacs) as follows: -
Sr.No. Heads Calculation (in Rs.)
1. Treatment expenses Rs.2,14,000/-
2. For pain and suffering Rs.10,000/-
3. For special diet Rs.5,000/-
4. For suffering disability/ Rs.2,70,256/-
earning capacity
Total Rs.4,99,256/-
(rounded off) Rs. 5
lacs
14. It is my clear view that in the facts and circumstances of the
case as noted above, a more than just and fair compensation has been
awarded to the appellant. No doubt Chapter
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
"State of Haryana Vs. Jasbir Kaur" Law Finder Doc
ID # 64043 and "Divisional Controller K.S.R.T.C. Vs. Mahadeva
FAO No.4755 of 2019 (O&M) -8-
Shetty and another" (2003) 7 SCC 197,
1 has held that the amount of
compensation should be just and reasonable, it should neither be a bonanza
nor a source of profit. In the case of "General Manager, KSRTC Vs.
Susamma Thomas & Others" 1994 Volume
Volume-II SCC 176, the Hon'ble
Supreme Court has held
held that misplaced sympathy, generosity and
benevolence cannot be the guiding factor for determining the
compensation.
15. It may also be pointed out that bbefore the learned Tribunal, the
appellant had himself appeared as PW-1
PW 1 and had deposed that the accident
in question had taken place due to the rash and negligent driving of the
offending vehicle by respondent No.1. On the basis of the testimony of the
appellant, the issue No.1 was decided in favour of the appellant/claimant
and it was held by the learned
learned Tribunal that the accident dated 26.02.2017
had been caused to the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle
by the respondent No.1; and consequentially, the appellant was held
entitled to compensation.
16. It may, however, be pointed out that in respect of the accident
dated 26.02.2017, an FIR bearing No.29 dated 28.02.2017 under Sections,
279, 337, 338 IPC had been registered at Police State Ismailabad against
the respondent No.1 on the statement made by the appellant
appellant/complainant.
In the aforementioned FIR No.29 dated 28.02.2017, the respondent No.1
Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, MIC
has been acquitted by the learned Judicial
Pehowa (hereinafter referred to as "learned JMIC") vide judgment dated
15.05.2019 as the appellant
appellant while appearing before tthe criminal Court as
FAO No.4755 of 2019 (O&M) -9-
PW-4
4 has turned hostile. Relevant finding of the learned JMIC in paras 9
and 10 of the judgment dated 15.05.2019 is as follows:
follows:-
"9.
9. Though prosecution has examined 5 witnesses but it
failed to bring home the guilt of accused beyond shadow of
reasonable doubt as the complainant Gurwinder Pal and
eye witness and injured Malak Singh, who are the
paramount witness of the present case, has failed to
support the prosecution case and has been declared
hostile.
10. The complainant Gurvinder Pal has been examined
as PW4 and he deposed that he has seen the accused
present in the Court. The accused present in the Court not
a person who cause the accident. Upon being declared
hostile, in his cross examination by learned APP for state,
he has denied
nied his statement Ex.PW1/A earlier made to
police and has categorically denied the allegations
levelled by prosecution against accused. However, he
identified his signature over Ex.PW1/A, but he stated that
his signature was obtained on the blank paper. He also
denied the suggestion that he has deposed falsely being
won over by accused."
17. A bare reading of the above fact
facts shows that the appellant has
turned turtle on his previous statement made before the learned JMIC. 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 attri
attributed to
the contrary statements made by the claimant side before the learned
FAO No.4755 of 2019 (O&M) -10-
Tribunal. 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. This Court in "Shri
Shri Ram General Insurance Company
Limited Vs. Jeeto Devi & Others" FAO
FAO-2231-2014 decided on
03.12.2019, held that:-
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 condu
conducting 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 liable 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 decision 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-
FAO No.4755 of 2019 (O&M) -11-
filing of a FIR is not material; 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 independent deci
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
accident. 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 explanation had been given by the
witness as to why he deposed falsehood 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
criminal
involved in the accident. He would, on the other hand, defy
that he ever made any such statement before the criminal
court, necessitating the statement made before the criminal
court to be exhibited for contradiction
contradiction before the Tribunal. It
must be remembered 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
FAO No.4755 of 2019 (O&M) -12-
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
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. Thus, no ground is made out ffor
enhancement of compensation.
21. In view of the above, the present appeal stands dismissed on
merits as well as on delay.
22. Pending
ending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.
(NIDHI GUPTA)
29.04.2026 JUDGE
seema
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
Whether Reportable: Yes/No
