[Cites 9, Cited by 0]
Punjab-Haryana High Court
Parveen Kumari vs Raju And Others on 23 January, 2026
FAO-745-2025 (O&M) -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
212 FAO-745-2025 (O&M)
Date of decision: 23.01.2026
Parveen Kumari ...Appellant(s)
Vs.
Raju and others ...Respondent(s)
CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA
Present:- Mr. S.S.Mor, Advocate for the appellant.
***
NIDHI GUPTA, J.
CM-2291-CII-2025
This is an application under Order 41 Rule 27 read with Section
151 CPC for permission to place on record documents Annexures A-1 to A-5,
by way of additional evidence.
2. By way of the present application, applicant/appellant is
seeking to place on record Annexures A-1 to A-5 which pertain to the
medical record of the deceased; as also the police proceedings.
3. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, the said
medical evidence is not of any relevance. Moreover, no reason has been
given by the applicant/appellant for not producing the above, said
documents before the learned Tribunal.
4. In view of the above, present application stands dismissed.
FAO-745-2025 (O&M)
FAO-745-2025 (O&M) -2-
The present appeal has been filed by the claimant against the
dismissal of her claim petition by the learned MACT, Jhajjar (hereinafter
referred to as 'the Tribunal'), vide Award dated 18.11.2024 passed in MACP
Case No. 79 dated 18.11.2024 filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles
Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The sole claimant is the
mother of the deceased Harish, who was 20 years old at the time of
accident.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the ld. Tribunal on the basis of
evidence adduced by the parties concluded that the appellant/claimant had
failed to prove that the accident dated 27.01.2019 at around 03:30 p.m.
had taken place due to the rash and negligent driving of a Mahindra Scorpio
bearing registration No.HR-06X-6256 (hereinafter referred to as "the
offending vehicle") being driven by respondent No1; owned by respondent
No.2; and insured by respondent No.3.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant assails the impugned Award
by submitting that learned Tribunal was in error in dismissing the Claim
Petition as it failed to appreciate that FIR in respect of the accident, was
registered on the same day on the basis of statement of injured Deepak
(who subsequently expired), who had also sustained injuries in the same
accident. It is submitted that from the record, it is also clear that the
offending vehicle has been taken into possession by the police from the
place of accident. Respondent No.1 has been charge-sheeted and the PW-7
Ahlmed from Criminal Court has appeared before the learned Tribunal and
has stated that respondent No.1 is facing trial. It is submitted that
FAO-745-2025 (O&M) -3-
therefore, in face of all the voluminous evidence, Claim Petition could not
have been dismissed.
4. When it is pointed out to learned counsel for the appellant
that at the time of accident, deceased was driving a bike on which 4
persons were riding, learned counsel contends that at best, the deceased
could therefore, have been held liable for contributory negligence or some
violation of the Motor Vehicles Act. However, the Claim Petition could not
have been dismissed as negligence on the part of respondent No.1 in
driving the offending Scorpio is established. It is accordingly prayed that the
present appeal be allowed; and the impugned Award be set aside.
5. No other argument is raised on behalf of the appellant. I have
heard learned counsel and perused the case file in great detail. I find no
merit in the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellant.
6. The case as pleaded by the appellant in the claim petition
before the learned Tribunal as recorded in para 7 of the impugned Award
reads as follows: -
"7. The petitioners have stated that on 27.01.2019
petitioner Ravi along with his colleague Harish, Deepak
Kumar @ Dipesh and Monu were going to Beri from village
Dadri on a motor-cycle for meeting their friends. The motor-
cycle was driven by Harish and Ravi, Deepak Kumar and
Monu were pillion riders. When at about 3:30 PM, they
reached near Dalawala Mandir at Dubaldhan-Beri Road then
a Mahindra Scorpio bearing registration No. HR-06X-6256
driven in rash and negligent manner by respondent No.1 Raju
came from the opposite side and directly hit the motor-cycle.
FAO-745-2025 (O&M) -4-
On account of which, petitioner and others who were sitting
on the motor-cycle fell down and sustained multiple grievous
injuries. Harish son of Jai Singh succumbed to the injuries
sustained by him in the accident. Many persons came at the
spot. Driver of the Scorpio by taking advantage of the crowd
fled away from the place of accident. The FIR of the above
accident bearing No.32 dated 27.01.2019, under Sections
279,337,304-A IPC in police station, Beri was lodged against
the respondent no.1. The petitioners have submitted that the
respondents, who are driver, owner and insurer of the
offending vehicle are jointly and severally liable to pay
compensation to the petitioners for causing death of Deepak
Kumar and Harish and causing injuries by Ravi and Monu in
the above accident."
7. From the above, it is admitted fact on record that at the time
of accident, deceased was driving bike with 3 pillion riders who were not
wearing helmet.
8. In the impugned Award, learned Tribunal has recorded the
testimony of pillion rider Monu, eye-witness as follows: -
"15. PW5 Monu in his testimony has stated that there
were four persons on the bike, Bike was driven by Harish.
Harish was wearing Halmet. Other three pillion riders were
not wearing the halmet. It is correct that till date, he has not
seen the driver of the Scorpio. He does not know who is the
owner of the Scorpio. Petitioner Monu who was the pillion
rider in his testimony in criminal case FIR No. 32 Ex.D6 has
stated that that he saw the driver of offending vehicle whose
name he came to know was Raju. After the accident, he
became unconscious. He has seen the accused, he cannot
FAO-745-2025 (O&M) -5-
identify him. Taking into consideration the above testimony of
Raju (should be Monu), he was declared hostile in the
criminal case bearing FIR no. 32."
9. It has come on record that pursuant to the accident, FIR No.
32 dated 27.01.2019 was registered against respondent No.1 under
Sections 279, 337, 304-A IPC at Police Station Beri on the basis of
statement of injured and eye-witness Deepak Kumar, alleging that
accident in question had taken place due to rash and negligent driving of
respondent No.1. However, Deepak Kumar had also died. During the
criminal trial, PW5 Monu, another injured eyewitness has stated that that
he saw the driver of offending vehicle whose name he came to know was
Raju. After the accident, he became unconscious. He has seen the
accused, but he cannot identify him. Taking into consideration the above
testimony of Monu, he was declared hostile in the criminal case bearing
FIR no. 32. Thus, PW5 Monu did not support the case of the prosecution
against respondent No.1.
10. It is to be appreciated that the present claim petition was
filed by the claimant with the positive averments that the accident
in question had been caused due to the rash and negligent driving of
the offending vehicle by respondent no.1. However, in the criminal trial
against respondent no.1/Driver, PW5 Monu eyewitness has turned hostile
and gone back/reversed on the case set up by the claimant side before the
learned Tribunal. This Court cannot be a deaf-mute spectator to the
two contradictory versions given by the claimant side. No doubt,
FAO-745-2025 (O&M) -6-
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. Therefore, it cannot be said that the accident in question was
caused due to the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by
respondent No.1; as the same would be contrary to the own statements
made by the claimant side. It would appear that the claimant side had
deposed falsely before the Tribunal only to get the compensation. In such
a situation, I find no error in the impugned Award.
11. I find support in my view from a judgment of this Court
in "United India Insurance Company Limited Vs. Kamla Devi &
Others" (P&H) : Law Finder Doc Id # 251230 wherein it has been 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-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 decision, then
the point that has to be seen is whether there was any evid-
ence worth its name before the Tribunal to come a finding
FAO-745-2025 (O&M) -7-
that the particular vehicle was involved in the accident. It
can be either that the version of Sitar Mohd. cannot be re-
lied for he has contradicted himself wholesale with the ver-
sion given before the criminal court or looked for other evid-
ence which was placed before the Court. Alternatively if any
explanation had been given by the witness as to why he de-
posed falsehood before the criminal court, even such an ex-
planation could have been accepted to enter a finding that
the accident took place only involving the particular in-
sured'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 acci-
dent. 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 exhib-
ited 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 eli-
cited before the Tribunal to the statement made before the
criminal court then such a witness will be unworthy of ac-
ceptance. The Tribunal could have simply rejected the whole
evidence. If it was going to pick out one line from chief ex-
amination 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.""
12. The above said view has been reiterated by 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 as under:-
FAO-745-2025 (O&M) -8-
"(6) This Court cannot loose sight of the judgment rendered
by this Court in the case of United India Insurance Com-
pany Limited versus Kamla Devi and others, wherein it was
specifically held that in case an eye witness gives totally dif-
ferent version before the Court conducting trial in criminal
case from the statement made by the said eye witness be-
fore the Tribunal, the testimony of such a witness is un-
worthy of being accepted and the evidence should be simply
rejected. In fact, the learned Single Bench came down heav-
ily on such witness and held that the said witness is also li-
able for perjury."
13. I am in agreement with the abovesaid view taken by my
worthy predecessors that the claimant side is liable for perjury for making
contradictory statements before two Courts of Law.
14. Furthermore, I am in agreement with the reasoning of
learned Tribunal in para 17 of the impugned Award, which reads as
follows:-
17. It is not disputed that at the time of accident, motor-cycle
was driven by Harish. Besides Harish, there were three more
pillion riders on motor-cycle. Three pillion riders were not
wearing halmet. The above conduct of the petitioners speaks
volume with regard to the negligence with which the motor-
cycle was driven at the time of accident. PW5 Monu in his
testimony has stated that he does not know who was driving
the Scorpio at the time of accident. Monu in his testimony
before the Court where Raju is facing criminal trial with
regard to the accident in hand has stated that he cannot
identify the accused. The same can be gathered from Ex.D6."
FAO-745-2025 (O&M) -9-
15. Learned counsel for the appellant has been unable to dispute
the abovesaid factual and legal position.
16. In view of the above, no ground is made out to interfere in
the impugned Award dated 18.11.2024. The present appeal is hereby
dismissed.
17. Pending application(s) if any also stand(s) disposed of.
23.01.2026 (NIDHI GUPTA)
Divyanshi JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
Whether reportable: Yes/No
