Kuldeep Kumar vs Surinder Pal Singh Etc.

-1-
108 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
FAO-2948-2003 (O&M)
Date of Decision: 02.11.2026
KULDEEP KUMAR
...Appellant
Versus
SURINDER PAL SINGH AND OTHERS.
...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PARMOD GOYAL
Present: Mr. U. K. Agnihotri, Advocate and
Mr. Saksham Ahlawat, Advocate
for the appellant.
Mr. R. C. Gupta, Advocate
for respondent No.2/Insurance Company.
PARMOD GOYAL, J. (ORAL)
Present appeal has been preferred by appellant-claimant being
aggrieved by award dated 13.11.2002 passed by learned Motor Accident
Claims Tribunal, Patiala (hereinafter referred to as ‘ Tribunal ’) whereby
claim petition preferred by appellant-claimant on account of injuries
sustained by him in motor vehicular accident dated 03.06.1998 allegedly
caused due to rash and negligent driving of respondent-driver while driving
Tata Siera car bearing registration No.CH01-U-3594 (hereinafter referred to
as ‘ offending vehicle ’), was dismissed.
2. It was the case of appellant-claimant that on 03.06.1998 he was
going on his motorcycle bearing registration No.PAN-7146 from Guru Ram
Dass Stone Crusher to his plot while driving on the left side of the road at
normal speed. That when he had reached near the turn towards Dhakoli side
a car bearing registration No.CH-01U-3594 being driven by respondent-
RAVINDER DHANIA
2026.11.05 12:47
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

FAO-2948-2003 -2-
driver rashly and negligently at high speed came from opposite direction and
had hit the motorcycle of appellant-claimant as respondent-driver could not
control his vehicle. Due to said hit, appellant-claimant had suffered multiple
injuries.
3. In order to prove the accident dated 03.06.1998, appellant-
claimant had himself appeared as PW-3 and had stated manner of occurrence
as was stated by him in his claim petition. Admittedly, in the present case,
no FIR was lodged by the appellant-claimant, rather DDR No.35 dated
06.06.1998 (Ex.P1) was recorded by Police on the statement of appellant-
claimant. In said DDR, appellant-claimant had duly spoken about having
suffered injuries in accident dated 03.06.1998 having been caused by Tata
Siera bearing registration No.CH-01U-3594. He, however, had stated in
DDR that though the accident was caused by vehicle No.‘CH-01U-3594’
which is stated to be ‘CH-014-3594’ by learned counsel for respondent-
insurance company, but the accident was caused all of a sudden when stray
cattle had come in front of offending vehicle being driven by respondent-
driver and to save that cattle respondent-driver had applied brakes and could
not control the vehicle, therefore, had hit the motorcycle of appellant-
claimant.
4. In the present case, respondents in their respective written
statements had denied the accident in totality. Respondent-driver had not
dared to come and depose the version given by him in his written statement.
Even the denial as regards to involvement in accident is not made on oath.
5. Following issues were framed by learned Tribunal:-
(1) Whether Kuldip Kumar claimant suffered physical
RAVINDER DHANIA
2026.11.05 12:47
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

FAO-2948-2003 -3-
injuries due to the rash and negligent driving by the
respondent No.1 of Tata Siera bearing registration
No.CH-01U-3594 on 03.06.2000. OPP.
(2) Whether the claimant is entitled to claim compensation,
if so, what amount and from whom. OPP.
(3)
Whether respondent No.1 was not holding effective and
valid driving licence on 03.06.1998. OPR.
(4) Relief.
6. Learned Tribunal decided issue No.1 against appellant-claimant
on the ground that the manner of accident as was stated by appellant-
claimant while appearing as PW-3 is not trustworthy. It on appreciation of
evidence of PW-3, after taking in consideration contents of DDR No.35
further had concluded that the version given by PW-3 appellant-claimant is
self-serving version not corroborated by any independent material and had
taken non-registration of FIR against respondent-driver to be a ground to
ignore the evidence of PW-3.
7. On consideration of evidence led by appellant-claimant before
learned Tribunal, I find that learned Tribunal had erred in concluding that
appellant-claimant had failed to prove accident and involvement of
respondent-driver in causing the accident. As far as vehicle number is
concerned, in DDR, vehicle number is mentioned as CH-01U-3594 which
according to the respondent-Insurance Company is CH-014-3594. It is
explained by learned counsel for the appellant-claimant that this discrepancy
has arisen as number was handwritten and ‘U’ is being read as ‘4’.
8. On perusal of DDR Ex.P1 which is part of record, it is clearly
RAVINDER DHANIA
2026.11.05 12:47
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

FAO-2948-2003 -4-
made out that registration No.CH-01U-3594 has wrongly been read as CH-
014-3594. The handwriting goes to show that it is ‘U’ not ‘4’. Moreover, it
is not the case of respondents that respondent No.1 was owner of offending
vehicle No.CH-014-3594 and it was CH-01U-3594 which had caused the
accident. Rather Ex.R1 insurance policy which has been placed on record by
respondents themselves goes to show that vehicle owned by respondent-
owner was CH-01U-3594. Therefore, the vehicle which had caused the
accident was vehicle No.CH-01U-3594 and not CH-014-3594. The
handwriting in DDR has wrongly been read as 014 instead of 01U. It is
worth noticing that apart from statement of appellant-claimant as PW-3,
DDR lodged after 03 days is also available on record which also clearly
points out that immediately after the occurrence appellant-claimant had duly
got recorded his statement showing involvement of offending vehicle in
causing of accident dated 03.06.1998.
9. Therefore, in these circumstances when involvement of vehicle
stands is duly established from DDR and if standard of proof of
preponderance of probabilities is applied to the facts and circumstances
which have been stated by PW-3 are taken in consideration in light of fact
that respondent-driver or respondent-owner had not dared to step into the
witness box to deny involvement of their vehicle, the learned Tribunal ought
to have accepted the manner of accident as was stated by PW-3 as was
deposed by him before the Court on oath. It is the statement on oath which
has got more evidentiary value than the statement made by appellant-
claimant or any other witness before the police.
10. The argument raised on behalf of learned counsel for the
RAVINDER DHANIA
2026.11.05 12:47
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

FAO-2948-2003 -5-
respondent-Insurance Company that sole statement of appellant-claimant
cannot be relied upon to conclude that accident was result of rash and
negligent driving of respondent-driver, cannot be accepted because as a
general rule. Facts and circumstances of each case have to be considered. In
present case, the statement of PW-3 alone has not been taken in
consideration rather it has been taken in consideration along with DDR
No.35 as well as outdoor card issued by GMCH, Sector-32, Chandigarh
dated 04.06.1998 wherein appellant-claimant was diagnosed with injuries on
his legs on account of road side accident. DDR as well as OPD card and
failure of respondents-owner and driver to deny accident by appearing and
deposing on oath, in fact corroborates the evidence led by appellant-claimant
and are sufficient to conclude accident to be result of rash and negligent
driving on the part of respondent-driver on the standard of proof -
‘preponderance of probabilities’.
11. In view of above discussion, it is therefore held that learned
Tribunal had erred in rejecting the evidence of PW-3 and had wrongly
concluded that appellant-claimant had failed to prove accident to be result of
rash and negligent driving on the part of respondent-driver while driving
offending vehicle (CH-01U-3594). The findings on issue No.1 are
accordingly, set aside.
12. Appellant-claimant in his evidence had stated that on account of
injuries, he had suffered multiple injuries which had resulted into fractures
of legs for which he was operated upon. He also claimed that he remained
admitted at C. Lall Hospital, Ambala. To support his said assertion, he had
duly examined Pardeep Kumar, Official from C. Lall Hospital as PW-2 who
RAVINDER DHANIA
2026.11.05 12:47
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

FAO-2948-2003 -6-
had also stated that appellant-claimant had remained admitted at C. Lall
Hospital and was operated upon and treated for which injuries suffered by
him in the accident. However, though with the claim petition, appellant-
claimant had annexed bill issued by C. Lall Hospital showing expenditure of
Rs.10,000/-, however, said certificate/receipt of accident was not proved by
proving the same in evidence. Therefore, from the evidence led by appellant-
claimant, the only fact which stands proved is that appellant-claimant had
suffered multiple and grievous injuries in the accident which had resulted in
fractures on his legs. He was operated upon and he remained under treatment
in C. Lall Hospital and was discharged after his treatment.
13. Appellant-claimant therefore, has failed to prove any permanent
disability on account of injuries suffered by him in the accident.
Accordingly, in view of facts and circumstances specially in view of
evidence led by appellant-claimant, appellant-claimant shall be entitled to
Rs.15,000/- towards medical expenses, transportation, special diet and
attendant charges . Appellant-claimant shall also be entitled to Rs.30,000/-
towards pain and sufferings as he had suffered multiple fractures for which
he had undergone surgery and plaster of paris was also applied for treatment
of said fractures.
14. Similarly, on account of fractures, he would have failed to earn
any amount for the period of about 04 months when he remained under
treatment for the fractures suffered by him. Accordingly, by taking his
monthly income to be Rs.2,000/- equivalent to the minimum wages payable
to unskilled worker in year 1998, loss of earning capacity is taken as
Rs.8,000/- (Rs.2,000/- x 4) in absence of proof regarding vocation and
RAVINDER DHANIA
2026.11.05 12:47
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

FAO-2948-2003 -7-
income of appellant-claimant. Accordingly, appellant-claimant shall be
entitled to total compensation of Rs.53,000/-.
15. Appellant-claimant shall also be entitled to interest over en-
hanced amount to the extent of 7.5% from the date of filing of claim petition
till its realization.
16. Present appeal is allowed in above terms.
17. Pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of.
(PARMOD GOYAL)
02.11.2026 JUDGE
Ravinder
Whether Speaking/Reasoned : Yes
Whether Reportable : Yes/No
RAVINDER DHANIA
2026.11.05 12:47
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document