Sukhjit Kaur And Ors. vs Gurcharan Singh And Ors.

FAO-1757-2005 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH

FAO-1757-2005
SUKHJIT KAUR AND OTHERS
......... Appellants
VERSUS
GURCHARAN SINGH AND OTHERS
..... Respondents
1. Judgment reserved on 17.08.2026
2. Judgment pronounced on 12.11.2026
3. Judgment uploaded on 13.11.2026
4. Whether only operative part of the judgment is
pronounced or whether the full judgment is Full
pronounced.
5. The delay, if any of the pronouncement of full Nil
judgment and reason thereof.
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHVIR SINGH RATHOR
Argued by : Mr. Maneet Kaushik, Advocate and
Mr. Abhinav Kansal, Advocate for
Mr. Ashit Malik, Advocate for the appellants.
Service of respondents No.1 and 2 dispensed with
vide order dated 16.11.2022.
Mr. Neeraj Khanna, Advocate for
Mr. R.N.Singal, Advocate for respondent No.3.

YASHVIR SINGH RATHOR , J.
1. This appeal has been directed against the Award dated
07.01.2005 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kurukshetra
( for short “Tribunal” ) vide which claim petition bearing MACT Case
No.26 of 2002 instituted by the claimants/appellants seeking
compensation on account of death of Jasvinder Singh in a motor
PRIYANKA THAKUR
2026.11.13 18:57
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

FAO-1757-2005 -2-
vehicular accident on account of rash and negligent driving on the part of
respondent No.1 while driving offending car bearing No.CH-03H-6931
( hereinafter referred to as ‘offending vehicle’ ), owned by respondent
No.2 and insured with respondent No.3, has been dismissed.
2. Case of claimants is that on 09.02.2004, Jasvinder Singh
(since deceased) along with his maternal uncle namely Makhan Singh
was coming from Ambala to his village on motorcycle bearing
registration No.HR-41A-8460 which was being driven by Jasvinder
Singh himself at a normal speed and on the left side of the road. At about
6:30 p.m., when they reached in front of village Khanpur-Kolian, on GT
Road, offending Indica car bearing registration No.CH-03H-6931 being
driven by respondent No.1 namely Gurcharan Singh at a fast speed and in
a rash and negligent manner came from behind i.e. Ambala side and
struck against the motorcycle as a result of which, Jasvinder Singh
suffered multiple injuries on his head and other parts of the body. After
some time, highway police patrol party reached at the spot and shifted
him to LNJP Hospital, Kurukshetra, where he was given first aid
treatment. Thereafter, he was taken to M/s Nagpal Nursing Home,
Kurukshetra, where he died on 10.02.2004. It is submitted that accident
took place due to rash and negligent driving on the part of respondent
No.1 while driving the offending vehicle. FIR No.33 dated 10.02.2004
under Sections 279 and 304-A IPC was registered at Police Station Sadar
Thanesar, on the statement of his maternal uncle Makhan Singh. It is
submitted that deceased has left behind claimant No.1, who is his wife
and claimants No.2 and 3, who are his parents and they are entitled to get
PRIYANKA THAKUR
2026.11.13 18:57
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

FAO-1757-2005 -3-
compensation.
3. Respondents No.1 and 2 in their written statement have
opposed the petition on the ground of maintainability, locus standi, cause
of action, mis-joinder and non-joinder of necessary parties. It is submitted
that no accident was caused by respondent No.1 while driving the car in
question. Infact, an accident had already taken place on the road where
the damaged truck was lying in an accidental condition. Deceased while
driving his motorcycle was following the car being driven by respondent
No.1 and when respondent No.1 slowed down the speed of his car to
cross the accidental truck, the deceased, who was coming from behind at
a far away distance at a high speed and in a rash and negligent manner
lost control over his motorcycle and fell on the road as his motorcycle
skidded. The motorcycle never hit against the car and the accident thus
took place solely due to own negligence of the deceased. It is further
submitted that respondent No.1 was having a valid and effective driving
licence and dismissal of the claim petition has been sought.
4. Respondent No.3-Insurance Company has also opposed the
petition on the grounds of collusion between the claimants and
respondents No.1 and 2 and violation of the provisions of the Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988 as well as the terms and conditions of the insurance
policy. On merits, it is submitted that no accident had occurred with the
offending vehicle and that the claim petition has been filed in collusion
with respondents No.1 and 2 to extract compensation from the Insurance
Company. It is further pleaded that respondent No.1 was not holding a
PRIYANKA THAKUR
2026.11.13 18:57
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

FAO-1757-2005 -4-
valid and effective driving licence at the time of the alleged accident and
therefore, the Insurance Company is not liable to indemnify the insured.
Accordingly, dismissal of the claim petition was sought.
5. From the pleadings of parties, following issues were framed
by the learned Tribunal:-
“1. Whether the accident in question, resulting into death
of Jasvinder Singh (aged 24 years), was caused due to
rash and negligent driving of car bearing no.CH-03H-
6931 by its driver Gurcharan Singh, respondent no.1?
OPP
2. If issue no.1 is proved, whether the claimants are
entitled to compensation, if so, how much and from
whom?OPP
3. Whether respondent No.1 was not holding a valid and
effective driving licence at the time of alleged
accident?OPR
4. Whether the claim petition has been filed by the
claimants in collusion with respondents no.1 & 2?
OPR
5. Relief.”
6. Thereafter, the parties led evidence in support of their case.
7. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and on going
through the material on file, learned Tribunal came to the conclusion that
accident in question had not taken place with the car being driven by
respondent No.1 and that complainant Makhan Singh was also not
accompanying the deceased and issue No.1 was decided against the
claimants. Under issue No.2, it was held that claimants would have been
entitled to a sum of Rs.7,18,900/- as compensation had issue No.1 been
PRIYANKA THAKUR
2026.11.13 18:57
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

FAO-1757-2005 -5-
decided in their favour. Under issue No.3, it was held that driver
possessed a valid and effective driving license and respondent No.3
would be liable to pay compensation to the claimants, jointly and
severally along with respondents No. 1 and 2, in case, issue No.1 would
have been decided in their favour. Under issue No.4, it was held that the
claim petition has not been instituted by the claimants in collusion with
respondents No.1 and 2 and issue No.4 was decided against Insurance
Company. Consequently, the petition was dismissed.
8. Feeling aggrieved, appeal in hand has been preferred. I have
heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the material
on the file.
9. Learned counsel for the appellants contended that impugned
Award vide which claim petition has been dismissed is based on
conjectures and surmises. The pleadings of the parties and evidence on
file have not been appreciated in the correct perspective while coming to
the conclusion that accident had not taken place due to rash and negligent
driving on the part of respondent No.1 while driving the offending
vehicle. Learned counsel next contended that claimants have examined
PW-3 Makhan Singh, who was accompanying the deceased at the time of
accident and had lodged the FIR. He has stated the material facts of the
case on oath as well. Learned counsel next contended that after
registration of FIR, the police had investigated the case and respondent
No.1 was arrested and has been challaned for the offences under Sections
279 and 304-A IPC and in these circumstances, there is no reason to
PRIYANKA THAKUR
2026.11.13 18:57
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

FAO-1757-2005 -6-
discard the testimony of PW3 Makhan Singh and since driver has been
challaned, it is safe to presume that accident in question had taken place
due to rash and negligent driving on his part. Learned counsel next
contended that in order to succeed in a petition under Section 166 of the
Act, rash and negligent driving on the part of driver of the offending
vehicle has to be established but in motor accident claim cases, standard
of proof is not as strict as is required in a criminal trial. In criminal trials,
the case has to be proved beyond reasonable doubt but in motor accident
claim cases, standard of proof is based on preponderance of probabilities
and in the present case, the evidence on file proves the involvement of
offending vehicle and rash and negligent driving on the part of
respondent No.1 resulting in the accident and he prayed that the finding
of the learned Tribunal on issue No.1 be reversed. In support of his
contentions, learned counsel has cited 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 9 ICICI
Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Rajani Sahoo & Ors. ,
1993(2) PLR 109 – Girdhari Lal Vs. Radhe Shyam and others , 2018
ACJ 1300, Mangla Ram Vs. Oriental Insurance Company Limited
and judgment dated 22.01.2018 passed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this
Court in FAO-8487-2017 titled United India Insurance Company
Limited Vs. Fakir Chand .
10. O n the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.3 has
argued that the offending vehicle has been falsely implicated and the
claim petition has rightly been dismissed by the learned Tribunal after
appreciating the material on file in the correct perspective. Infact, a false
witness has been introduced and PW3 Makhan Singh had never
PRIYANKA THAKUR
2026.11.13 18:57
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

FAO-1757-2005 -7-
witnessed the accident and the accident took place solely due to
negligence of the deceased himself as he was under the influence of
alcohol and could not control his vehicle when he saw one accidental
truck parked on the road and his motorcycle slipped resulting in injuries
and his subsequent death. Learned counsel next contended that PW3
Makhan Singh is the real maternal uncle of the deceased and he has been
subsequently introduced only to strengthen the case of the claimants.
Deceased himself was a police constable and the investigating officer has
not conducted the investigation in the right direction just to help the
claimants in getting compensation. Learned counsel next contended that
had PW3 Makhan Singh been accompanying the deceased, he would
have certainly accompanied his maternal nephew to the hospital and
would not have left the spot for informing the family members. Learned
counsel next contended the fact that driver/respondent No.1 is facing the
trial as an accused in the criminal case in relation to the accident in
question will not ipso facto give rise to the inference regarding
involvement of the offending vehicle and rash and negligent driving on
the part of its driver. Learned counsel further argued that the findings
arrived at by learned Tribunal on issue No.1 are perfectly legal and valid
and based on evidence which do not require any interference and he
contended that appeal in hand be dismissed. In support of his contentions,
learned counsel has cited 2001(3) RCR(Civil) 582 Ram Karan Vs. Zile
Singh , 2018 (1) PLR 720 Magma HDI General Insurance Company
Limited Versus Mukesh Devi and others , 2013 (4) PLR 47 (P&H)
Anita and others Versus Narender Singh and others and 2010(4) PLR
PRIYANKA THAKUR
2026.11.13 18:57
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

FAO-1757-2005 -8-
797 National Insurance Company Limited Versus Satwinder Kaur
and others .
11. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and on going
through the material on file, I am of the considered opinion that the
judgment passed by the learned Tribunal is well reasoned and justified
and the appeal in hand is liable to be dismissed for the reasons discussed
hereinafter.
12. To prove their case, the claimants have examined PW3
Makhan Singh who has stated the material facts of the case with regard to
manner of accident on oath as set up by the claimants and to counter his
version, respondent No.1 has stepped into witness box as RW1 and has
stated his own case on oath. Learned Tribunal on appreciation of
evidence while returning finding on issue No.1 held as under:-
“16. When the evidence on record is appraised and
scrutinized, it overwhelmingly supports and sustains the
case set up by respondents no.1 & 2 as also by respondent
no.3 and rather hits at the genuineness of the case of the
claimants. At this stage, taking a pause, it may be mentioned
that death of Jasvinder Singh on 10.2 2004, as reflected in
post-mortem report (Ex.P11) succumbing to the injuries
sustained by him in a road side accident on 9.2.2000 while
driving motor cycle bearing no.HR-41A-8460 on GT Road
near village Khanpur-Kolian is proved. The claimints are,
however, to establish that the accident resulting in injuries
to the deceased had been caused by the respondent driver
while driving Indica car no.CH-03H-6931 The Indica car
was being driven by respondent no.1 and was owned by
respondent no.2 is not in dispute. Driving licence of
PRIYANKA THAKUR
2026.11.13 18:57
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

FAO-1757-2005 -9-
respondent no.1 is Ex.R1 and registration certificate in
favour of respondent no.2 is Ex.R3. The vehicle was insured
with respondent no.3 ie the New India Assurance Company
vide insurance policy (Ex.R4).
17. Respondent Gurcharan Singh making statement on
affidavit (Ex RW1/A) was subjected to pointed cross
examination when he entered the witness box but his credit
could not be impeached. He is very candid in his deposition
and does not deny presence of his car on the road but has
innocently explained that as the truck having already met
with an accident was lying parked on the road side, he
slowing down his car had gone ahead of the said truck while
the motor cyclist was far behind him and as he was
negligent in driving the motor cycle which was being plied
at a rash and high speed, the motor cycle had skidded as it
could not be controlled near the accidental truck and the
motor cycle rider had received multiple injuries. He is
categorical that the motor cycle had not even touched his
car. He is further categorical that the occurrence had also
been seen by the police patrolling party which had taken the
injured immediately to LNJP hospital, Kurukshetra. This
version of the respondent is overwhelmingly supported from
the medical evidence which is of independent and neutral
character.
18. It is not disputed that immediately after the accident,
the injured was taken to LNJP hospital, Kurukshetra where
he was given medical treatment but for further treatment, the
injured had been referred to PGI, Chandigarh. It was after
his CT scan which had revealed the injury to the brain and
fracture on left parietal bone of the skull. Instead of taking
the injured to PGI, Chandigarh, the injured had been
brought to M/s Nagpal Nursing Home, Kurukshetra by
Kuldeep Singh, father of the victim who by then had arrived
PRIYANKA THAKUR
2026.11.13 18:57
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

FAO-1757-2005 -10-
there. Though the claimants have not examined the doctor
who attended on the victim in LNJP hospital Kurukshetra
and who could have brought the record regarding admission
of the victim as also medico legal report and other
documents throwing some light on the vehicles involved in
the accident but have examined Dr. A.C. Nagpal of M/s
Nagpal Nursing Home, Kurukshetra as PW1. Though
identity of the offending vehicle does not emerge from the
hospital record divulged to this doctor but it is proved that
the victim from the site of the accident had been shifted to
LNJP hospital, Kurukshetra by a high way police patrol
party. Version of the claimants that Makhan Singh, maternal
uncle of the deceased, was riding pillion of the motor cycle
of the deceased, is negatived by the statement of Dr. A.C.
Nagpal (PW1). When the evidence is scrutinized, it is found
that said Makhan Singh was neither present at the spot nor
had taken the injured to LNJP Hospital, Kurukshetra nor
was present when the injured was brought in Nagpal
Nursing Home, Kurukshetra. He was not even present at the
time when the post-mortem (Ex.P11) of the deceased was
conducted. Version appearing in the statement of Smt.
Sukhjit Kaur, widow of the leceased (PW2) further hits the
credit and the genuineness of the police case against the
respondent no.1. Report under section 173 Cr.PC. (Ex.P8)
finds its gensis in the statement (Ex.P4) of Makhan Singh, an
alleged eye-witness of the accident. The accident had taken
place around 6.30 PM on 9.2.2004. Information of the
accident became available to Smt. Sukhjit Kaur (PW2) on
telephone at about 9:00 PM. Information had been given by
one Krishan, a friend of the deceased. Version of Smt.
Sukhjit Kaur (PW2) is that thereafter her father-in-law I.e.
Kuldeep Singh had gone to the hospital when he was
accompanied by Makhan Singh (maternal uncle of the
PRIYANKA THAKUR
2026.11.13 18:57
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

FAO-1757-2005 -11-
deceased). Thus, Smt. Sukhjit Kaur (PW2) herself has
conceded that Makhan Singh was not riding pillion of the
motor cycle driven by the deceased at the time of accident.
Makhan Singh thus being an eye-witness is out of question.
Thus from the statement of Smt. Sukhjeet Kaur (PW2)
herself, veracity of contents of affidavit (Ex.P3), statement
(EX.P4) as also statement on oath made by Makhan Singh
(PW3) is completely lost.
19. Version of Makhan Singh (PW3) that though the
injured was taken in a police patrol vehicle but he had
accompanied the injured to the hospital, is negatived from
the fact that in the first available record of the hospital,
father's name of the victim is not available. Even the name of
the victim is not correct. Victim is Jasvinder Singh son of
Kuldeep Singh, whereas in the information (Ex.P6) sent by
the doctor on duty at 7.10 PM on 9.2.2004 to the police he is
mentioned as Yasvinder Singh. So far his father's name is
concerned, the same is mentioned as "not known". Had
Makhan Singh been present with the injured, he being so
closely related to him, was neither to wrongly mention name
of the victim nor was to omit mentioning the name of his
father. When the information had been sent to the police by
the treating doctor at 7.30 PM on 9.2.2004, even though the
victim himself was not in a fit state of mind to make
statement, had Makhan Singh been present with the injured,
his statement could have been recorded by the police
without any delay.
20. Looking from another angle, selective production of
record from LNJP hospital, Kurukshetra is also to be
noticed. Only ruqqa (Ex.P6) has been produced and that too
without summoning the treating doctor. Presence of any one
with the deceased on the pillion of the motor cycle as also
about the identity of the offending vehicle, could have been
PRIYANKA THAKUR
2026.11.13 18:57
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

FAO-1757-2005 -12-
known from such record. An adverse inference is to be
drawn against the claimants on this count.
21. In view of the totality of the circumstances as above,
neither presence of Makhan Singh as an eye-witness is
proved by the claimants nor identity of the offending vehicle
as CH-03H-6931 is established.
22. At this stage, a mention needs to be made about the
statement of Head Constable Sukhdev Singh (IO) PW4 and
conclusion of investigations vide report under section 173
Cr.P.C. (Ex.P8). Presence of Makhan Singh as pillion rider
with the victim has been negatived. He being an eye-witness
had also not been established. Admittedly, the injured had
immediately been shifted to LNJP hospital, Kurukshetra by
head constable (SO) of highway police patrol party, why his
statement was not recorded by HC Sukhdev Singh (10) PW4,
is not explained. Thus, investigations are highly lopsided.
23. Rather version of respondents no.1 and 2 contained in
their pleadings that the deceased was drunk and had not
been able to control his motor cycle and had resulted in his
fall on the road resulting in multiple injuries and a case had
been launched against respondent no.1 merely to help the
deceased, a police official, to garner compensation from the
insurance company, gains ground. Admittedly, the deceased
was a police official. From the statement of Dr. A.C. Nagpal
(PW1) it is clear that the patient was smelling of alcohol and
as per Dr. A.C. Nagpal (PW1), this fact also finds mention
in the medico legal report prepared by the treating doctor in
LNJP hospital, Kurukshetra. The height of falsehood of HC
Sukhdev Singh (IO) PW4 is found in denial of this fact. He
even denies that MLR has got such recital of the victim
being smelling of alcohol. Rather, as a prudent IO he was to
make an application to the treating doctor to ascertain the
effect of alcohol on the victim. It was not done.
PRIYANKA THAKUR
2026.11.13 18:57
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

FAO-1757-2005 -13-
24. From the totality of circumstances, as discussed
above, neither the presence of Makhan Singh as an alleged
eye-witness of the accident nor involvement of Indica car
bearing registration No.CH-03H-6921 has been established
by the claimants. Thus, this issue is decided against the
claimants and in favour of the respondents.
25. Though in view of findings on issue no.1 above there
is no need to advance findings on other issues but to make
the discussion wholesome and to avoid the possibility of the
remand of the case (in the eventuality of reversal of findings
on issue no.1), the findings on other issues are also being
advanced.”
13. In this manner, version of PW3 Makhan Singh is that he was
accompanying the deceased at the time of accident and after the accident,
highway police patrol party took the injured to the hospital and he went
to the village to inform the father of the injured about the accident.
However, such a conduct cannot be expected from a normal prudent man.
The deceased was the real maternal nephew of PW3 Makhan Singh and
had he been present at the spot, he would have certainly accompanied
him to the hospital for his treatment. In the FIR itself, it has been
mentioned that the injured was shifted to the hospital by highway police
patrol party and the record of LNJP Hospital, where first aid was given,
also states that victim was brought to the hospital by the police. PW3
was not even present when post-mortem of the deceased was conducted
vide PMR Ex.P11. Even intimation about the accident was given to wife
of the deceased by one person namely Krishan telephonically at 9.00 p.m.
after the accident took place at 6:30 p.m.. PW2 Sukhjit Kaur, who is wife
PRIYANKA THAKUR
2026.11.13 18:57
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

FAO-1757-2005 -14-
of the deceased, stated that her father-in-law namely Kuldeep Singh had
gone to the hospital accompanied by Makhan Singh, maternal uncle
(PW3) and this part of her testimony also shows that Makhan Singh was
not accompanying the deceased at the time of accident. It is pertinent to
mention that even the name of victim is not correctly mentioned in the
medical record, which is recorded as Yashvinder Singh instead of
Jasvinder Singh. Even father's name is not mentioned as the same was not
known to the doctor and had Makhan Singh been present with the
injured, he would have certainly disclosed the name of the father of the
deceased to the doctor. PW4 Head Constable Sukhdev Singh is the
Investigating Officer, who has presented the final report Ex.P8 and victim
was taken to the hospital by Head Constable of highway police patrol
party but his statement too was not recorded by PW4 HC Sukhdev Singh
and had PW3 been present at the spot of accident , t he Head Constable of
the highway police patrol party, who took the victim to the hospital,
could have stated this fact. As such, from the evidence on file, learned
Tribunal rightly came to the conclusion that PW3 Makhan Singh was not
accompanying the deceased and had not witnessed the accident. Besides
this, respondents No.1 and 2 have taken a categoric stand that the
deceased was under the influence of alcohol and was unable to control his
motorcycle, which skidded resulting in injuries on his person. PW-1 Dr.
A.C. Nagpal has also admitted that the MLR prepared by the treating
doctor at LNJP Hospital, Kurukshetra, records that the deceased was
smelling of alcohol and in these circumstances, version of respondents
No.1 and 2 that deceased was unable to control his motorcycle also
PRIYANKA THAKUR
2026.11.13 18:57
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

FAO-1757-2005 -15-
becomes probable as he was under the influence of alcohol and learned
Tribunal thus rightly came to the conclusion that the claimants have
failed to prove the presence of Makhan Singh at the spot as well as
involvement of the offending vehicle and there is thus no reason to take a
contrary view. Accordingly, I concur with the finding of learned Tribunal
on issue No.1 which is well reasoned and justified and same does not call
for any interference and is affirmed.
14. In view of the aforesaid discussion, there is no merit in the
appeal and the same is ordered to be dismissed. However, parties shall
bear their own costs.
15. Pending misc. application(s), if any, shall also stand
disposed of.
12.11.2026 (YASHVIR SINGH RATHOR)
Priyanka Thakur JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether Reportable Yes/No

PRIYANKA THAKUR
2026.11.13 18:57
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document