Ram Nath vs H.R.T.C. And Anr.

FAO-4476-200
01(O&M)

IN
THE HIGH COURT OF PUN

NJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGA
ARH

(104)


FA
Da
AO-4476-2001(O&M)

ate of Decision:03.11.2026
Ram Nath


...Appellant
Versus
H.R.T.C.(Shim
mla) and Another

... Respondents
CORAM: HO
ON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMA
ARINDER SINGH GREWAL
Present: Mr
for

Mr
Mr
for

r. Ashish Gupta, Advocate,
r the appellant.
r. Vipul Sharma, Advocate, with
r. Ravinder Arora, Advocate,
r respondent No.1.
h


AMARINDER
R SINGH GREWAL, J. (ORAL
L)
1. Th
he present appeal has been pr
referred by the appellant-claim
mant,
seeking reversa
al of the impugned Award date
ed 24.05.2001 passed by the M
Motor
Accident Claim
ms Tribunal,Chandigarh, where
by the claim petition filed by
the
appellant–claim
mant, arising out of the motor ve
ehicle accident dated 22.08.199
96 in
which the he su
ustained multiple injuries, was di
ismissed.
2. Su
uccinctly, the facts of the case ar
re that on 22.08.1996, at about 7
7:20
AM, the claim
mant was standing in front of th
he bus stop outside the Bus St
and,
Naraingarh, and
d was waiting for a bus to procee
ed to Chandigarh to join his duty
y. In
the meantime,
Bus bearing registration No. H
HP-18-3554, allegedly being dr
iven
rashly and negl
ligently by respondent No. 2, c
ame at a high speed and struck
k the
claimant, resul
lting in serious injuries to him
m. He was initially taken to C
Civil
Hospital, Narai
ingarh, where he was provided f
first aid, and was thereafter refe
erred
SHUBHAM
2026.11.05 14:40
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
1 | P a g e

FAO-4476-200
01(O&M)

to Civil Hospita
al, Ambala, from where he was
further referred to PGI, Chandig
garh,
where he rema
ained admitted and underwent
surgery. The claimant sustaine
ed a
fracture in hi
s leg, dislocation of his lef
ft hip and also suffered urin
nary
complications.
He subsequently remained adm
mitted at Sarwal Hospital, Amb
bala,
and Monga Ho
spital, Ambala Cantt. At the tim
me of the accident, the claimant
was
34 years of a
age and was employed as a
Chowkidar in the Water Sup
pply
Department, Un
nion Territory, Chandigarh, dra
awing a monthly salary of ₹5,35
50/-.
He claimed to h
have incurred approximately ₹3,
,00,000/- towards medical treatm
ment
and sought com
mpensation under various heads,
including permanent disability,
loss
of income, lo
ss of future earning capacity
y, medical expenses, special d
diet,
transportation,
attendant charges, pain and
suffering, loss of amenities
and
enjoyment of
life. However, the learned Tri
ibunal, vide the impugned aw
ward,
dismissed the c
claim petition filed by the claima
ant. Aggrieved thereby the appel
llant
has filed the pre

esent appeal.
3. Lea
arned counsel for the appellant
t contends that the learned M
Motor
Accident Claim
ms Tribunal, while dismissing th
he claim petition vide award d
dated
24.05.2001, ha
as failed to appreciate the ma
aterial evidence and the facts
and
circumstances
of the case. Further, it is cont
tended that the appellant had d
duly
established the
involvement of HRTC bus bear
ring registration No. HP-18-355
54 in
the accident da
ated 22.08.1996 through the tes
stimony of PW4 Gainda Ram, w
who
categorically d
deposed that the offending bus,
, driven rashly and negligently
y by
respondent No
. 2, struck the appellant while
he was standing on the roads
side,
resulting in grie
evous injuries. The testimony of
f the said witness clearly establis
shed
the involvemen
nt of the offending vehicle a
and the negligence of its dri
iver.
Furthermore, le
earned counsel submits that res
spondent No. 2, in order to ev
vade
liability, had co
oncocted a false version regard
ding the route and movement of
f the
SHUBHAM
2026.11.05 14:40
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
2 | P a g e

FAO-4476-200
01(O&M)

bus, and his dep
position contained material contr
radictions with regard to the jour
rney
undertaken by
him on 21.08.1996 and 22.0
08.1996, which were sufficien
nt to
discredit his tes
stimony. Moreover, it is contend
ded that the appellant had produ
uced
documentary ev
vidence and examined PW3, a
member of the Medical Disab
bility
Board, who pro
oved 3% disability in relation t
to the urinary system, however,
, the
learned Tribuna
al assessed compensation at on
nly ₹1,97,925/- and failed to aw
ward
any compensati
ion towards future loss on acco
unt of disability, besides grantin
ng a
meagre sum of
f ₹30,000/- towards pain and
suffering, despite the fact that
the
appellant had u
undergone two operations and rem
mained without pay for 171 day
ys. It
is further argue
ed that the appellant was also en
ntitled to compensation of ₹25,0
000/-
under the princ
ciple of no-fault liability under
Section 140 of the Motor Vehi
icles
Act. Lastly, lea
arned counsel contends that the
e compensation awarded is wh
holly
inadequate in
view of the serious nature of
f injuries and permanent disab
bility
suffered by the
appellant and that the impugned
d award is liable to be set aside, w
with
the claim peti
tion being allowed and just
and adequate compensation b
eing
granted.
Per
4.
r contra
, learned counsels for th
he respondent No.1 submits that
t the
impugned awar
rd does not suffer from any ill
legality or perversity and has b
been
passed after pro
oper appreciation of the evidenc
ce on record. It is contended that
t the
learned Tribuna
al has rightly assessed the oral
and documentary evidence and
has
returned well-r
easoned findings on all the issu
ues involved, which do not call
l for
any interference
e by this Court.
5. I ha
ave heard learned counsel for th
he parties and examined the lim
mited
record, with the
eir able assistance.
6. A p
perusal of the impugned award
d reveals that the learned Tribu
unal
dismissed the c
laim petition primarily on the gr
round that the claimant had faile
ed to
SHUBHAM
2026.11.05 14:40
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
3 | P a g e

FAO-4476-200
01(O&M)

establish the in
nvolvement of bus bearing re
egistration No. HP-18-3554 in
the
accident dated 2
22.08.1996. The learned Tribuna
al disbelieved the testimony of P
PW4
inter alia
ness to the occurrence,
a
, on
Gainda Ram, w
who was projected as an eyewitn
the ground that
t he was not well educated and h
had not noted down the registra
ation
number of the o
offending bus at the time of the
accident. The learned Tribunal
also
entertained dou
ubts regarding the manner in w
which the said witness subseque
ently
came to know
w the registration number of
the vehicle. On the other h
and,
considerable re
liance was placed upon the test
imony of respondent No. 2, Ch
aran
Dass, who appe
eared as RW1 and denied the inv
volvement of the bus in question
n, as
well as the du
uty register, Ex. R1, produced
by him in support of his ver
rsion
regarding the m
movement and route of the bus
s on the relevant date. The lear
rned
Tribunal accept
ted the defence that the bus had
d reached Manali at about 8:00
AM
on 22.08.1996,
whereas the accident was allege
ed to have taken place at Naraing
garh
at about 7:20 A
AM on the same day. The learned
d Tribunal also referred to the ea
arlier
claim petition f
filed by the claimant, wherein th
he name of the driver had alleg
edly
not been disclo
osed, and the absence of any cri
iminal proceedings in respect of
f the
occurrence. On
n the basis of these circumstance
es, the learned Tribunal returned
d its
finding on Issu
ue No. 1 against the claimant.
It is, however, significant that
t the
learned Tribun
al did not disbelieve the medic
cal evidence regarding the inju
uries
sustained by th
he claimant and proceeded to a
assess compensation at ₹1,97,92
25/-.
The claim petit
tion was ultimately dismissed s
solely because the learned Tribu
unal
was not satisfie
d regarding the involvement of t
the offending vehicle.
7. The
e controversy which, therefore
e, arises for consideration in
the
present appeal
is whether the learned Tribuna
al correctly appreciated the oral
and
documentary e
evidence while recording a fin
nding that the involvement of
f the
offending bus h
had not been established. The e
evidence is required to be exami
ined
SHUBHAM
2026.11.05 14:40
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
4 | P a g e

FAO-4476-200
01(O&M)

cumulatively, p
particularly the testimony of the
claimant himself, the depositio
n of
PW4 Gainda R
am, who claimed to have witnes
ssed the occurrence, and the defe
ence
evidence led by
y respondent No. 2, Charan Das
ss, along with the duty register,
Ex.
R1. In this rega
ard, it is pertinent to notice that t
the learned Tribunal appears to h
have
placed substant
tial reliance upon the denial furn
nished by respondent No. 2 and
d the
duty register pr
roduced through him, without ad
dequately examining the same in
n the
light of the evi
idence led by the claimant. Res
spondent No. 2 was admittedly
y the
driver of the bu
us in question and, therefore, his
denial of involvement was requ
uired
to be subjected
d to careful scrutiny, particularly
y when he was himself intereste
ed in
disputing the o
occurrence so as to avoid the co
onsequences of the claim. The d
duty
register was un
ndoubtedly a relevant piece of
evidence. However, its evident
tiary
value was requi
ired to be assessed with referenc
ce to its actual entries, the testim
mony
of its producer a
and the other circumstances esta
ablished on record.
8. Furt
ther, coming to the evidence led
d by the claimant, it is not in disp
pute
that he sustaine
ed serious injuries, including fr
ractures and dislocation of the
hip,
underwent surg
gical treatment and remained a
admitted in different hospitals.
The
medical record,
, including the documents exhib
bited before the Tribunal, establi
shes
the nature and
seriousness of the injuries suffe
fered by him. More importantly,
, the
claimant himse
elf appeared as PW1 and rei
iterated his version regarding
the
accident, while
PW4 Gainda Ram specifically
supported his case by deposing
that
on 22.08.1996
, while travelling in a Rehra
a from his village Baroli tow
wards
Naraingarh alon
ng with other passengers, he w
witnessed bus No. 3554 approach
hing
from the Nahan
n side at a high speed and striking
g the claimant, who was standing
g on
the roadside. H
He further attributed the occurre
ence to the fault of the bus dri
iver,
namely Charan
Dass, and stated that the injured
d claimant was taken to the hosp
pital
in the same bus
s. The testimony of PW4, theref
fore, was direct evidence connec
cting
SHUBHAM
2026.11.05 14:40
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
5 | P a g e

FAO-4476-200
01(O&M)

the offending v
vehicle with the accident. In my
y considered opinion, his testim
mony
could not have
been discarded merely because
he was not well educated or had
d not
contemporaneo
usly noted down the registr
ration number of the bus. S
Such
circumstances,
by themselves, do not render
an eyewitness's account inhere
ently
unreliable, part
ticularly when the witness has
given a specific description of
f the
occurrence and
d identified the vehicle involved.
. The learned Tribunal was requ
uired
to examine the
e substance of his testimony,
his presence at the spot and
the
consistency of
his account, rather than reject
ting the same on the basis of
f the
aforesaid circum
mstances. Further, the absence of
f an FIR or criminal proceedings
s, by
itself, could not
t have been treated as determina
ative of the claimant's entitlemen
nt, as
proceedings un
der the Motor Vehicles Act are
summary in nature and the claim
mant
was required
to establish his case on the
touchstone of preponderance
e of
probabilities an
nd not beyond reasonable doubt
t. The earlier claim petition, wh
hich
was dismissed
for want of prosecution and not
t on merits, was also not suffici
ient,
by itself, to disc
credit the evidence led in the pre
esent proceedings.
9. Furt
thermore, the testimony of respo
ondent No. 2, Charan Dass, requ
uires
consideration i
in the light of the circumstanc
ces brought out during his cr
ross-
examination. A
Although he denied the involvem
ment of the bus and relied upon
n the
duty register, E
Ex. R1, his version regarding
the movement of the vehicle
e on
21.08.1996 and
d 22.08.1996 was required to be
e examined in its entirety, includ
ding
the admissions
regarding the journey undertake
en by the bus and the driver who
had
operated it on
the preceding day. It is partic
cularly significant that the lear
rned
Tribunal placed
d considerable reliance upon the
duty register, Ex. R1, for accep
pting
the defence ver
sion regarding the movement of
f the offending bus on the date of
f the
accident. Howe
ever, the manner in which the sa
aid document was brought on rec
cord
also assumes s
ignificance. The duty register w
was produced by respondent N
No. 2
SHUBHAM
2026.11.05 14:40
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
6 | P a g e

FAO-4476-200
01(O&M)

himself, who w
was admittedly the driver of th
e bus in question and was dire
ectly
interested in d
disputing its involvement in th
he accident. The register was
not
produced throu
ugh any officer responsible
for its maintenance, custody
y or
supervision, wh
ho could have explained the r
relevant entries and the manne
er in
which they w
ere recorded. Though the me
ere production of the register
r by
respondent No.
. 2 would not render the docum
ment inadmissible or unreliable,
, the
learned Tribuna
al was required to scrutinise its
evidentiary value with greater c
care,
particularly wh
hen the same was relied upon
to support the defence of its
own
producer. The
entries contained therein could
not have been accorded overrid
ding
significance wi
ithout examining their reliabilit
ty in the context of the remain
ning
evidence. The l
learned Tribunal, therefore, erre
ed in attaching undue weight to
o the
denial of respo
ondent No. 2 and the duty reg
gister, while failing to accord
due
consideration t
o the direct evidence furnished
d by the claimant and PW4. O
On a
cumulative app
preciation of the evidence, the
e claimant's version regarding
the
involvement of
f the offending vehicle is found
to be more probable. Consequen
ntly,
the finding retu
urned by the learned Tribunal on
Issue No. 1 cannot be sustained
and
is accordingly
set aside. It is held that the
e claimant has established, on
the
touchstone of
preponderance of probabilities
, that he sustained injuries in
the
accident dated
22.08.1996 involving bus bea
aring registration No. HP-18-35
554,
which was bein
ng driven rashly and negligently b
by respondent No. 2.
10. In v
view of the foregoing discussion
n, once the finding returned by
y the
learned Tribun
al on Issue No. 1 has been rev
versed and the involvement of
f the
offending vehic
cle along with the rash and neg
gligent driving of respondent N
No. 2
stands establish
hed, the claimant becomes entitl
led to the compensation assessed
d by
the learned Tri
ibunal. It is pertinent to notic
e that the learned Tribunal, w
while
appreciating th
he medical and documentary e
evidence led by the claimant,
had
SHUBHAM
2026.11.05 14:40
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
7 | P a g e

FAO-4476-200
01(O&M)

assessed the tot
tal compensation payable to him
m at ₹1,97,925/-. The said assessm
ment
was made afte
r considering the injuries susta
ained by the claimant, the med
dical
treatment under
rgone by him and the disability
y proved on record. Since the cl
laim
petition was di
ismissed solely on account of t
the finding on Issue No. 1, and
d no
independent ad
dverse finding has been recorded
d so as to disentitle the claiman
nt to
the compensatio
on assessed under the remaining
g issues, the claimant is held enti
itled
to the aforesaid
d amount of ₹1,97,925/-.
11. In v
view of the aforesaid facts and
circumstances, this Court finds
that
the award pass
sed by the learned Tribunal call
ls for modification to the afore
esaid
extent. The com
mpensation awarded herein, sh
hall also carry interest @ 7.5%
per
annum from th
e date of filing of the claim pe
tition till its realization, payable
e by
respondents.
12. Pen
nding application(s), if any,
shall also stands disposed
of
accordingly.


November 03,
Shubham*




( AMA

2026
ARINDER SINGH GREWAL )
)
JUDGE

Whether speaking/rea
Whether reportable
asoned : Yes/No
: Yes/No


SHUBHAM
2026.11.05 14:40
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
8 | P a g e