Harminder Singh vs Sikander Singh And Others on 29 April, 2026

                      FAO-4063-2001 &
                      FAO-2862-2001                     [1]


                               IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH


                      i)       FAO-4063-2001

                      Harvinder Singh                                                  ...Appellant

                                                          Versus

                      Sikandar Singh and others                       ...Respondents

                      ii)      FAO-2862-2001

                      Kashmir Kaur and others                                          ...Appellants

                                                          Versus

                      Davinderpal Singh and others                    ...Respondents

                                           Reserved on: 23.04.2026
                                           Pronounced on: 29.04.2026
                                           Pronounced fully/opera5ve part: Fully

                      CORAM:        HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA

                      Argued by: Mr. Rishav Jain, Advocate for
                                 Mr. Arihant Jain, Advocate
                                 for the appellant in FAO-4063-2001.

                                    Mr. Neeraj Khanna, Advocate and
                                    Mr. Ravinder Arora, Advocate
                                    for respondent No.3-Insurance Company.
                                    In FAO-4063-2001

                                    Mrs. G.K. Mann, Sr. Advocate with
                                    Ms. Chandrika, Advocate
                                    for the appellants in FAO-2862-2001.

                                    Mr. Imran Ahmed, Advocate
                                    for respondents No.5 & 7 in FAO-2862-2001.

                                                      ****
                      DEEPAK GUPTA, J.

The present judgment shall dispose of two appeals, namely

FAO-2862-2001 ﬁled by Kashmir Kaur and others, and FAO-4063-2001 ﬁled

FAO-4063-2001 & FAO-2862-2001 [2]

by Harvinder Singh, both arising out of a common award dated 19.05.2001 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Pa=ala (hereina?er referred to as "the Tribunal").

2. By virtue of the impugned award, three claim pe==ons were adjudicated together. The Tribunal dismissed the claim pe==ons ﬁled by Kashmir Kaur for the injuries sustained by her, and by Kashmir Kaur along with her children on account of the death of Tara Singh. However, the claim pe==on ﬁled by Harvinder Singh was allowed and a compensa=on of ₹1,00,000/- was awarded to him along with interest.

3. Factual Background : The case arises out of a motor vehicular accident which took place on 20.01.1996 involving two scooters bearing registra=on Nos. PB-11F-7053 and PB-11G-1089.

4. As per the version put forth by Kashmir Kaur, she was travelling as a pillion rider on scooter No. PB-11F-7053 being driven by her husband Tara Singh. When they reached near village Hassanpur, another scooter bearing No. PB-11G-1089, carrying three persons, came from the opposite direc=on in a rash and negligent manner and struck against their scooter, resul=ng in injuries to both and ul=mately causing the death of Tara Singh.

5. On the other hand, as per the version set up by Harvinder Singh, he was himself driving scooter No. PB-11G-1089 along with two pillion riders, when scooter No. PB-11F-7053, being driven by Tara Singh, came from the opposite direc=on in a rash and negligent manner, went to the wrong side of the road and collided with his scooter, resul=ng in injuries to him and other occupants.

6. Thus, two diametrically opposite versions were presented before the Tribunal regarding the manner of occurrence. YOGESH MEHTA 2026.04.29 15:45

I attest to the accuracy and Findings of the Tribunal : The Tribunal, upon apprecia=on of integrity of this document FAO-4063-2001 & FAO-2862-2001 [3]

oral and documentary evidence, returned a categorical ﬁnding that the accident had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of scooter No. PB- 11F-7053 by Tara Singh. Consequently, the claim pe==ons ﬁled by Kashmir Kaur and others were dismissed, whereas the claim pe==on ﬁled by Harvinder Singh was allowed.

8.1 Submissions on behalf of the Appellants in FAO No.2862- 2001: Learned Senior Counsel appearing for Kashmir Kaur and others has assailed the ﬁndings of the Tribunal primarily on the ground that the Tribunal has failed to properly appreciate the evidence on record. It is contended that the Tribunal has placed undue reliance upon the DDR, which cannot be treated as substan=ve evidence, and has ignored the tes=mony of Kashmir Kaur, who herself was an injured eyewitness.

8.2 It is further argued that the oﬀending scooter was admiJedly carrying three persons, which is in viola=on of statutory provisions, and such overloading itself is indica=ve of negligence. It is also contended that, in any case, the appellants were en=tled to compensa=on under the principle of no-fault liability as envisaged under Sec=on 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act.

9. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company has supported the ﬁndings of the Tribunal and contended that the same are based upon proper apprecia=on of evidence and do not call for interference.

10. Considera%on by the Court : This Court has heard learned counsel for the par=es at length and has carefully perused the record.

11. Issue No.1: Whether the ﬁnding on negligence calls for interference?

YOGESH MEHTA 2026.04.29 15:45

I attest to the accuracy and The determina=on of negligence is the pivotal issue in the integrity of this document FAO-4063-2001 & FAO-2862-2001 [4]

present case.

13. A perusal of the record reveals that the Tribunal has not based its ﬁndings solely upon the DDR. Rather, it has undertaken a comprehensive analysis of the evidence led by the par=es. The tes=mony of Kashmir Kaur (AW1) was found to be unreliable on account of material contradic=ons. Despite speciﬁc pleadings, she failed to iden=fy the driver of the oﬀending scooter during her deposi=on. Similarly, the tes=mony of Kuldip Singh (AW4), projected as an eyewitness, was found to be lacking in material par=culars and unsupported by medical evidence.

14. On the contrary, the version as contained in the DDR, which was recorded promptly on the statement of Kashmir Kaur herself, indicates that a lady had suddenly come in front of the scooter being driven by Tara Singh and in an aJempt to save her, he lost control and struck against the oncoming scooter. Signiﬁcantly, when confronted with the said DDR, Kashmir Kaur did not dispute its correctness nor did she allege any mis- recording.

15. It is trite that though a DDR/FIR is not a substan=ve piece of evidence, yet when it is duly proved and its maker does not dispute its contents, the same can be taken into considera=on as a contemporaneous account of the occurrence.

16. In the present case, the DDR assumes importance not as the sole basis, but as a corrobora=ve piece of evidence suppor=ng the version put forth by Harvinder Singh.

17. Furthermore, the conten=on regarding overloading of the opposite scooter does not advance the case of the appellants. Mere viola=on of statutory provisions, in the absence of any evidence to show that such overloading contributed to the accident, cannot ipso facto lead to a ﬁnding of negligence.

18. In view of the above, this Court ﬁnds no perversity or illegality FAO-4063-2001 & FAO-2862-2001 [5]

in the ﬁnding recorded by the Tribunal that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of Tara Singh. The said ﬁnding is accordingly aﬃrmed.

19. Issue No.2: En=tlement to compensa=on under no-fault liability

20. However, the maJer does not end here. Even where negligence is established against a par=cular party, the statutory scheme of the Motor Vehicles Act envisages grant of compensa=on on the principle of no-fault liability under Sec=on 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act.

21. A perusal of the impugned award reveals that the Tribunal has not adverted to this aspect at all while dismissing the claim pe==on ﬁled by Kashmir Kaur and others.

22. The en=tlement under Sec=on 140 is independent of proof of negligence and is intended to provide immediate succor to the vic=ms of motor accidents.

23. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, the appellants, being the legal representa=ves of the deceased Tara Singh, would be en=tled to compensa=on under the said provision to the tune of ₹ 50,000/- along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of ﬁling of the claim pe==on =ll realiza=on.

24. Issue No.3: Quantum of compensa=on awarded to Harvinder Singh - As regards the appeal ﬁled by Harvinder Singh, the record reveals that the appellant was about 20 years of age at the =me of the accident and had suﬀered a fracture of the right kneecap, resul=ng in permanent disability assessed to the extent of 25%. The evidence further indicates that he remained under treatment for a considerable dura=on and had to endure prolonged physical discomfort and restric=on in normal ac=vi=es.

25. Despite the aforesaid circumstances, the learned Tribunal

awarded a consolidated sum of ₹1,00,000/- without undertaking any

FAO-4063-2001 & FAO-2862-2001 [6]

structured assessment under the seJled heads of compensa=on. Such an approach, in the considered opinion of this Court, is legally unsustainable, as it is well seJled that even in cases of personal injury, compensa=on is required to be determined under dis=nct and recognized heads so as to ensure that the award is just, fair and reasonable.

26. Keeping in view the age of the claimant, his pleaded income at ₹ 1500/- per month, the nature of injuries suﬀered, the extent of permanent disability and its impact on his earning capacity and quality of life, besides the period of accident (1996), this Court considers it appropriate to reassess the compensa=on on a ra=onal basis.

27. Accordingly, compensa=on is quan=ﬁed as follows : -

x ₹1,20,000/- : loss of earning capacity on a no=onal basis;

x ₹50,000/- : pain and suﬀering endured by the claimant;

x ₹40,000/- : medical expenses, assessed on a lump sum basis in the absence of documentary proof; and

x ₹40,000/- : loss of ameni=es and enjoyment of life.

The total compensa=on thus works out to ₹2,50,000/-.

28. Consequently, the compensa=on awarded to Harvinder Singh is enhanced from ₹1,00,000/- to ₹2,50,000/-. The enhanced amount of ₹1,50,000/- shall carry interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of ﬁling of the claim pe==on =ll its realiza=on.

29. Conclusion : Consequently, FAO-2862-2001 ﬁled by Kashmir Kaur and others is partly allowed. While the ﬁnding of negligence recorded by the Tribunal is upheld, the appellants are held en=tled to compensa=on under Sec=on 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act to the tune of ₹ 50,000/- along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of ﬁling of the claim pe==on =ll realiza=on. The respondents are directed to pay the said statutory

compensa=on along with interest as applicable.



                       FAO-4063-2001 &
                      FAO-2862-2001                     [7]

30. FAO-4063-2001 ﬁled by Harvinder Singh is allowed. The compensa=on awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced to ₹2,50,000/-. The enhanced amount of ₹1,50,000/- shall carry interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of ﬁling of the claim pe==on =ll its realiza=on.

31. Both appeals stand disposed of in the aforesaid terms. A photocopy of this order be placed on the ﬁle of connected case.

29.04.2026 (DEEPAK GUPTA) Yogesh JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned:- Yes/No Whether reportable:- Yes/No

Uploaded on: __.04.2026