Loveleen Khurana vs Amol Kumar & Ors

Court
Punjab and Haryana High Court


IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH

243 (1) FAO-4123-2005

Date of decision :11.11.2026

BHARAT KHURANA . .. APPELLANT
VERSUS
AMOL KUMAR & ORS. ...RESPONDENTS
(2) FAO-4124-2005
PARVEEN KHURANA . .. APPELLANT
VERSUS
AMOL KUMAR & ORS ...RESPONDENTS

(3) FAO-4641-2005
LOVELEEN KHURANA . .. APPELLANT
VERSUS
AMOL KUMAR & ORS ...RESPONDENTS


CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PARMOD GOYAL
Present: Mr. Nischal Chetanya Manchanda, Advocate
for the appellant(s) in all cases.

Mr. Sanjeev Pabbi, Advocate
for the respondent-Insurance Company in all cases


PARMOD GOYAL, J.


1. The present appeals arise out of a common award dated 10.02.2005
passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Karnal (hereinafter referred to
as the ‘Tribunal’), whereby the claim petitions filed by the appellants-claimants
MANOJ KUMAR
2026.11.13 16:50
I attest to the accuracy and integrity
of this document





FAO-4123-2005 -2-
and other connected cases

under section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 seeking compensation on
account of injuries suffered by them in the accident dated 12.01.2003 due to
rash and negligent driving of Maruti car bearing registration no. DL-2CR-
2731(hereinafter referred to as ‘offending vehicle’) by respondent – driver, were
dismissed

2. The details of the appeals arising out of the claim petitions is as
under:

(i) FAO-4124-2005 arising out of MACT Case No. 204 of 2003,
titled Smt. Parveen Khurana Vs. Shri Amol Kumar and
others ;

(ii) FAO-4641-2005 arising out of MACT Case No. 205 of 2003,
titled Ms . Loveleen Khurana Vs. Shri Amol Kumar and
others ; and

(iii) FAO-4123-2005 arising out of MACT Case No. 206 of 2003,
titled Bharat Khurana Vs. Shri Amol Kumar and others

3. The case set up by the appellants-claimants was that on 12.01.2003,
Parveen Khurana (claimant in MACT Case No. 204 of 2003), Loveleen Khurana
(claimant in MACT Case No. 205 of 2003) and Bharat Khurana (claimant in
MACT Case No. 206 of 2003) were travelling on a scooter after attending a
function organised by Bharat Vikas Parishad. The scooter was being driven by
claimant Bharat Khurana. At about 4:00 p.m., after giving an indication for
taking a right turn towards Mini Secretariat, the scooter on which the appellants-
claimants were travelling was hit by the offending vehicle, coming from the
opposite direction being driven by respondent No. 1 in rash and negligent
manner. As a result of the impact, all the three appellants-claimants fell on the
MANOJ KUMAR
2026.11.13 16:50
I attest to the accuracy and integrity
of this document





FAO-4123-2005 -3-
and other connected cases

road and had suffered grievous injuries, including fractures.

4. Respondent No. 1- driver of the offending vehicle filed a detailed
written statement contesting the claim petitions. He admitted that the accident
had taken place on 12.01.2003; however, pleaded that the accident was the result
of rash and negligent driving on the part of appellant-claimant Bharat Khurana,
who was riding the scooter and had suddenly taken a right turn, thereby hitting
the offending vehicle. It was further pleaded that he had duly applied the brakes
in order to avoid the accident, but the occupants of the scooter fell on the road
and sustained minor injuries. Accordingly, respondent No. 1 sought dismissal of
the claim petitions.

5. Respondent No. 3- the insurance company had also contested the
claim petitions and sought dismissal of the same.

6. From the basis of the pleadings of the parties, following issues were
framed:

1. Whether the accident was caused due to rash and negligent
driving Maruti car bearing registration No. DL-2CR-2731 by
respondent No.1 Amol Kumar causing injuries to petitioners
Smt. Parveen Khurana, Loveleen Khurana and Bharat
Khurana, as alleged? OPP.

2. Whether the petitioners are entitled to receive any compensation
amount on account of injuries sustained by them in the accident.
If so how much and from whom? OPP

3. Whether the insured has violated any terms and conditions of
insurance policy, as alleged. If so, to what effect ? OPR 3

4. Relief.


7. In order to establish the manner of occurrence, injured claimant
Parveen Khurana appeared as PW-3 and Bharat Khurana, who was riding the
MANOJ KUMAR
2026.11.13 16:50
I attest to the accuracy and integrity
of this document





FAO-4123-2005 -4-
and other connected cases

scooter at the relevant time, appeared as PW-4. The appellants-claimants had
also examined Baldev Khurana, husband of Parveen Khurana and father of
Bharat Khurana and Loveleen Khurana as PW-5. To corroborate their version
regarding the occurrence, Dr. Vijay Gupta was examined as PW-1 to prove the
nature of injuries suffered by the appellants-claimants, whereas Manoj Kumar,
Ahlmad, was examined as PW-2 to prove the pendency of the criminal trial
arising out of the FIR (ExP5) registered against respondent No. 1. On the other
hand, respondent No. 1 himself appeared in the witness box as RW-1 and denied
the claim as well as the version put forth by the injured appellants- claimants.

8. As regards the testimony of PW-5, the learned Tribunal duly
noticed, that during his cross-examination, he admitted that he was not present
at the spot at the time of the accident. On the basis of the pleadings and evidence
available on record, the learned Tribunal further observed that the scooter on
which the injured appellants-claimants were travelling was carrying all three of
them. Loveleen Khurana was aged about 12/13 years old, whereas Bharat
Khurana, who was riding the scooter was 17 years old. That appellant Bharat
Khurana, being a minor, was not holding a valid driving license at the time of
the accident.

9. The learned Tribunal further took note of the fact that the witnesses
examined by both sides, namely, PW-3 and PW-4 on behalf of the appellants-
claimants and RW-1 on behalf of the respondents, had stated that the accident
occurred when the scooter took a right turn and was crossing towards the right
side, whereupon it was hit by the car coming from the opposite direction. The
learned Tribunal also noticed from the cross-examination of PW-3 that the car
was being driven on its correct side of the road at the time of the accident. This
MANOJ KUMAR
2026.11.13 16:50
I attest to the accuracy and integrity
of this document





FAO-4123-2005 -5-
and other connected cases

indicated that the accident had occurred on the correct side of the car when the
scooter took a right turn.

10. Keeping in view the testimonies of PW-3, PW-4 and RW-1, the
learned Tribunal concluded as under:-
“ 12. From the pleadings as well as from oral evidence of parties,
one fact is explicitly clear that while car driver was proceeding on
straight road, scooter on which all the claimants were sitting, was
coming from opposite direction and was to turn towards right and
in the said process, while the scooter was turning towards right,
accident took place. Besides the fact that it is admitted case of both
the sides that the accident had taken place, when the scooter driver
was in the process of taking turn towards right, criminal case file
was also summoned and perused for the purpose of perusing the
site plan prepared during investigation by the police. A copy of the
same was also retained on the file as mark X. Site plan prepared is
not disputed by the claimants even. Even perusal of site plan
prepared by the police also makes it clear that the car driver was
on main road and scooter driver, coming from opposite direction,
was to turn towards right and while scooter was in the process of
turning towards right, accident had taken place. In the FIR Ex. P-
5 recorded on statement of claimant Bharat Khurana, he got
recorded that he along with his mother and sister were returning
after attending a function organised by Bharat Vikas Parishad
while he was driving the scooter and his sister was sitting in front
of him while his mother was sitting on pillion seat, when the
accident occurred. In the affidavit filed by Smt. Parveen Khurana
and Bharat Khurana, they have changed the position, showing
Loveleen on the pillion seat, however in the earliest version
Loveleen was stated to be in front of scooter driver. Loveleen was
aged about 12/13 years. The age of claimant Bharat Khurana, who
was driving the scooter at the time of accident was 17 years. He
MANOJ KUMAR
2026.11.13 16:50
I attest to the accuracy and integrity
of this document





FAO-4123-2005 -6-
and other connected cases

was still minor on that day and was permitted by his mother
(claimant Parveen Khurana) to drive the scooter with herself as
pillion rider and her daughter (claimant Loveleen) standing in
front of scooter driver. Not only that it is the claimants, who were
to turn towards right, during which process, accident had occurred,
while the car driver was on straight road. When a minor was
driving the scooter with three riders and still without caring for
traffic, turned towards right, without looking as to whether the road
was clear, certainly no negligence can be fastened upon respondent
No.1, in causing the accident. Rather it is a case of gross negligence
on the part of scooter driver, who turned towards right without
seeing the traffic. It was gross negligent act on the part of claimant
Smt. Parveen Khurana to have permitted her son Bharat Khurana,
a student of 10+2 and aged 17 years only, at the time of accident
to drive the scooter with three riders .”


11. On reconsideration of the pleadings, evidence and the findings
recorded by the learned Tribunal, as noticed above, I do not find any infirmity
in the appreciation of evidence and the conclusion drawn by the learned
Tribunal. The conclusion arrived at by the learned Tribunal is a probable
conclusion, which is duly supported by the facts and circumstances emerging
from the testimonies of PW-3, PW-4 and RW-1. Admittedly, the scooter was
being driven by a minor boy aged about 17 years, namely, appellant - claimant
Bharat Khurana, who was not holding a valid driving license to drive the vehicle.
It is also not in dispute that, at the time of the accident, the scooter was carrying
three persons, namely, its driver Bharat Khurana, his mother and his sister.
Further, the accident had taken place when the appellant-claimant driving the
scooter took a right turn and was hit by a vehicle coming from the opposite
direction on its correct side of the road.
MANOJ KUMAR
2026.11.13 16:50
I attest to the accuracy and integrity
of this document





FAO-4123-2005 -7-
and other connected cases


12. Taking into consideration all these facts and circumstances, the
conclusion drawn by the learned Tribunal cannot be faulted with. Merely
because a person has suffered injuries in an accident or the offending vehicle is
bigger in size than the vehicle on which the injured person was travelling, the
same, by itself, is not sufficient to conclude that the accident occurred due to
rash and negligent driving of the bigger vehicle. A finding of rash and negligent
driving has to be based upon the facts and circumstances duly established on
record, demonstrating rashness or negligence on the part of the driver concerned.

13. In the present case, the stand of respondent No. 1 throughout has
been that the accident occurred due to lack of driving skills on the part of Bharat
Khurana, who was not a major and was not holding a driving license, and who
suddenly took a right turn without taking note of the traffic approaching from
the opposite direction, which was proceeding on its correct side of the road. A
person intending to take a turn is under an obligation to exercise due care and
caution and to ensure that the turn is taken only after properly noticing the traffic
approaching from the opposite direction.

14. From the facts and circumstances of the present case, it is clearly
established that the accident occurred on account of rash and negligent driving
on the part of the appellant-claimant Bharat Khurana himself, who suddenly
took a right turn without taking due care and caution or noticing the vehicle
approaching from the opposite direction on its correct side of the road. The
finding recorded by the learned Tribunal is based on proper appreciation of the
evidence available on record and does not call for any interference by this Court.
Consequently, the present appeals, being devoid of merit, are hereby dismissed.

MANOJ KUMAR
2026.11.13 16:50
I attest to the accuracy and integrity
of this document





FAO-4123-2005 -8-
and other connected cases


15. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand(s) disposed
of accordingly.

16. A photocopy of this order be placed on the files of other connected
cases.

11.11.2026 (PARMOD GOYAL)
manoj JUDGE


Whether speaking/reasoned Yes
Whether reportable Yes/No
MANOJ KUMAR
2026.11.13 16:50
I attest to the accuracy and integrity
of this document