Joga Singh And Ors vs Harjeet Singh @ Hardeep Singh And Ors
2026 Latest Caselaw 2695 P&H

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Joga Singh And Ors vs Harjeet Singh @ Hardeep Singh And Ors on 19 March, 2026

                                                    FAO-1817-2024     Page 1 of 9

     IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
  116
                                            FAO-1817-2024(O&M)
                                      Date of decision: 19.03.2026
Joga Singh & Others
                                                     ...Appellant(s)
                               Vs.

Harjeet Singh @ Hardeep Singh & Others
                                                              ...Respondent(s)
                                   ***
CORAM:       HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA
Present:-    Mr. Tarun Sharma, Advocate
             for the appellants.

           ***
NIDHI GUPTA, J.

CM-6935-CII-2024

This is an application under Section 5 of Limitation Act for

condonation of delay of 115 days in filing the appeal.

The reason given in the application seeking condonation of

delay of 115 days is contained in Para 1 of the application, which is as under:-

"1. That the appellants are filing the accompanying appeal for enhancement of the impugned award dated 12.07.2023 in this Hon'ble Court and same is likely to succeed on the grounds taken therein but the appeal before this Hon'ble High Court could have not been filed within the period of limitation as the appellants are poor persons and does not know the technicalities of law and after deciding the above claim petition, the appellants could not contacted the counsel before Ld. Trial Court. The Trial Court counsel many times tried to contact the appellants but their mobile numbers were found switch off at that time. That the

1 of 9

appellant No.1 being senior citizen and not keeping good health and only the bread winner of his family. That in the month of January 2024 last week, appellant No. 1 visited the District Court for some purpose and met his counsel and then counsel told him that their claim case is decided on 12.07.2023. Then the appellant No. 1 asked from the Trial Court Counsel that now what is the next procedure and then the Ld. Trial Court counsel has advised him to file an appeal against the impugned award dated 12.07.2023 and then after arranging the necessary documents etc. the appellants contacted the undersigned counsel to file the appeal pro-bono and hence in this way the delay of 115 days has occurred in filing the present appeal which is neither intentional nor willful rather the same has occurred due to the bonafide reasons mentioned above."

The above cited reason is does not constitute sufficient cause to

condone extraordinary delay of 115 days in filing the present appeal. It is

cardinal principle of law that delay of each day has to be explained. In this

regard, reliance may also be placed upon recent judgment of Hon'ble

Supreme Court in "Shivamma (Dead) by LRs Vs. Karnataka Housing Board &

Others" Civil Appeal No.11794 of 2025 decided on 12.09.2025. As such, no

ground is made out for condoning inordinate delay of 115 days. Present

application accordingly stands dismissed.

MAIN CASE

Present appeal has been filed by the claimants seeking

enhancement of compensation of Rs.3,61,000/- awarded by the Motor

2 of 9

Accident Claims Tribunal, Ferozepur (hereinafter 'the learned Tribunal')

vide Award dated 12.07.2023 passed in MACP/24 dated 07.07.2021 filed

under Sections 166 and 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act (hereinafter "the

Act"). The 3 claimants are the 64-year-old husband, 22-year-old son, and

24-year-old daughter of deceased Sant Kaur, who was 62 years old at the

time of accident.

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

pleadings and oral & documentary evidence adduced by the parties,

concluded that the deceased Sant Kaur had died due to the injuries suffered

by her in a motor vehicular accident that took place on 07.05.2020 due to

the rash and negligent driving of Car bearing registration No.PB-02-CH(T)-

3170 (hereinafter "the offending vehicle") being driven by respondent No.1,

owned by respondent No.2 and insured by respondent No.3. The said

compensation has been awarded along with interest @ 7% per annum.

Respondent No.3 was held liable for payment of compensation.

3. Learned counsel for the appellants seeks enhancement of

compensation by submitting that income of the deceased has been wrongly

assessed as only Rs.3500/- per month. It is submitted that the deceased was

working as Helper in Anganwari and earning Rs.6,000/- per month; and she

was also doing other domestic works like stitching, agricultural work etc. Thus,

income of the deceased has been wrongly assessed. It is further submitted

that the amounts granted under the conventional heads are also liable to be

3 of 9

enhanced. Interest should have been awarded @ 18% per annum. It is

accordingly prayed that the present appeal be allowed and impugned Award

be modified as above.

4. No other argument is made on behalf of the appellants. I have

heard learned counsel and perused the case file in detail. I find no merit in

the submissions advanced on behalf of the appellants.

5. Record reveals that it was the pleaded case of the appellants

before the learned Tribunal that deceased was 55 years old at the time of

accident. However, no concrete evidence was produced by the appellants to

prove their said assertion. Accordingly, the learned Tribunal had determined

age of the deceased to be 62 years old at the time of accident on the basis of

Post-Mortem Report (Ex.C2). Further, contrary to the statements of the

appellants in respect of the income of the deceased, no evidence in this

regard was led by the appellants. Nonetheless, Tribunal had accepted the

contention of the appellants that deceased was working in a Government

organisation as a volunteer and was having monthly salary of Rs.3500/- per

month. I find no error in the same.

6. As deceased was between 61 to 65 years old, no future

prospects were liable to be added. Multiplier of 7 has been correctly applied.

As there were 3 claimants, learned Tribunal has made deduction of 1/3rd

towards personal expenses. Under the conventional heads, the learned

Tribunal has awarded an amount of Rs.16,500/- towards loss of estate;

4 of 9

Rs.16,500/- towards funeral expenses; and Rs.44,000/- to each of the three

claimants towards loss of consortium; thereby granting total compensation

of Rs.3,61,000/-. Thus, the above said compensation awarded to the

appellants is as per the structured formula laid down by the Supreme Court.

There is therefore, no scope for enhancement.

7. In fact, even otherwise, appellants were not entitled to

compensation for the reasons given here in below. It has come on record that

in respect of the accident in question, the claimant No.1 Joga Singh/husband

of the deceased, who was also stated to be the eyewitness of the accident in

question, had appeared as CW1 before the learned Tribunal and had deposed

that the respondent No.1 had banged the offending car from behind in the

motorcycle of the deponent thereby causing death of the deceased and

injuries to the deponent. Therefore, it is the clear testimony of the claimant

No.1 before the learned Tribunal that the accident in question had been

caused due to rash and negligent driving of the offending car by the

respondent No.1.

8. Being eyewitness, Joga Singh had made statement before the

police on the basis of which FIR No.33 dated 07.05.2020 was registered under

Sections 304-A, 427, 279, 337, 338 and 427 IPC at Police Station Sadar Zira

against respondent no.1 in respect of the accident in question. It is to be

noted that in the said FIR, the respondent No.1 has been acquitted by the

learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Zira vide judgment dated 06.02.2024, in

5 of 9

view of the fact that the complainant Joga Singh/claimant No.1 had not

supported the case of the prosecution. The categoric finding of the learned

Magistrate is as follows:-

"13. The complainant Joga Singh PW-3 has not supported the case of the prosecution and has failed to identify the accused present in the court. There is no other evidence from the side of prosecution so as to prove the presence of accused at the scene of occurrence. No case against the accused is made out in these circumstances."

9. A bare reading of the above facts shows that the claimant side

has turned turtle on its previous statement. It is to be appreciated that the

present claim petition was filed by the claimants 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, the complainant, Joga Singh, had taken

a diametrically opposite stand. Thus, respondent no.1 could not be

connected with the accident in question and was accordingly acquitted. This

Court cannot be a deaf-mute spectator to the two contradictory versions

given by the claimant side. 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 subsequent statements made by the claimant

6 of 9

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 before the learned JMIC. It would

therefore appear that the claimant had deposed falsely before the Tribunal

only to get the compensation. In such a situation, reference may be made to

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 deci- sion 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 bind- ing 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 evidence worth its name before the Tribunal to come a finding that the par- ticular vehicle was involved in the accident. It can be either that the version of Sitar Mohd. cannot be relied for he has contradicted him- self wholesale with the version given before the criminal court or looked for other evidence which was placed before the Court. Alter- natively if any explanation had been given by the witness as to why he deposed falsehood before the criminal court, even such an expla- nation could have been accepted to enter a finding that the accident

7 of 9

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, neces- sitating the statement made before the criminal court to be exhib- ited for 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 con- tradiction 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 ac- cident, the Tribunal was doing something which is not a judicial function but a travesty of justice.""

10. 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:-

"(6) This Court cannot loose sight of the judgment rendered by this Court in the case of United India Insurance Company Limited ver-

sus Kamla Devi and others, wherein it was specifically held that in case an eye witness gives totally different version before the Court 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

8 of 9

rejected. In fact, the learned Single Bench came down heavily on such witness and held that the said witness is also liable for perjury."

11. Learned counsel for the appellants is unable to dispute or

controvert the aforesaid facts and findings. Thus, no ground whatsoever is

made out for enhancement of compensation.

12. In view of the above, present appeal stands dismissed on

grounds of delay as well as on merits.

13. Pending application(s) if any also stand(s) disposed of.

19.03.2026                                              (Nidhi Gupta)
Sunena                                                       Judge
 Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
 Whether reportable:        Yes/No




                                     9 of 9