Preet Mohinder Singh v. Smt. Santro Devi & ORS.



IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

Reserved on 12.09.2025 Date of decision: 15.09.2025 I.

FAO-1096-1998 (O&M) Preet Mohinder Singh Sodhi ...Appellant

Versus

Smt. Santro Devi (Deceased) Through LRs and others

...Respondents

II.

Jaswinder Singh ...Appellant

Versus

Smt. Santro Devi (Deceased) Through LRs and others

...Respondents

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA

Present:

Mr. Ajaivir Singh, Advocate for the appellant in FAO-1096-1998 and for respondent No.8 in FAO-1470-1998.

Mr. Munish Jolly, Advocate for the appellant in FAO-1470-1998 and for respondent No.7 in FAO-1096-1998.

Mr. Ankit Joshi, Legal Aid Counsel for respondents No.1, 5 & 6.

Ms. Mallika Dhillon, Advocate for Ms. S.S. Sidhu, Advocate for the respondent-Insurance Company.

**** DEEPAK GUPTA, J.

This order disposes of the two First Appeals (FAOs) arising out of the common award dated 17.02.1998 passed by the Learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT), Kurukshetra, whereby compensa8on of


₹1,92,000/- with interest was awarded to the claimants Smt. Santro Devi & others, for the death of Ram Kishan in a motor-vehicle accident. 2.

For convenience sake, the par8es are referred according to their status before the Tribunal. Trial Court record was called for and perused. 3.

According to the case set up by the claimants, on 04.06.1995 at about 11:00 A.M., Sukhwant Singh was riding motorcycle bearing registra8on No. HR-41-2880 with Ramkishan (since deceased) as a pillion rider. When the motorcycle had reached approximately one kilometre from Pehowa towards Kaithal, a scooter bearing registra8on No. PCP-1906, being driven by respondent No.1 in a rash and negligent manner at a high speed, came from the opposite direc8on, swerved to the wrong side of the road and struck the motorcycle. Due to the impact, both Sukhwant Singh and Ramkishan sustained injuries. Ramkishan was shi@ed to PGI, Chandigarh, where he succumbed to the injuries during treatment. On the statement of Varinder Kumar (AW3), FIR No. 177 dated 04.06.1995 was registered at Police Sta8on, Pehowa against the scooter driver in respect of the accident.

The claimants pleaded that the deceased Ramkishan was about 35 years of age, of sound health and physique, and employed with Haryana Machinery Store, with his dependents reliant upon his earnings. They claimed compensa8on of ₹5,00,000/- against the driver and owner of the offending scooter. In the alterna8ve, it was pleaded that if the Court comes to conclusion that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of motorcycle No. HR-41-2880, then the driver, owner and insurer of the said motorcycle be held jointly and severally liable to pay the compensa8on.

4.

The claim pe88oners sought ₹5,00,000/- (with alternate pleadings) and impleaded various persons a@er inves8ga8on revealed confusion about the iden8ty of the scooter involved (registra8on No. PCP-1906 v. PCP-1908). During course of proceedings the following posi8on emerged:


Jaswinder Singh was ini8ally impleaded as driver of scooter No. PCP-1906; Preet Mohinder Singh Sodhi was impleaded as owner of Scooter No. PCP1906; Pawan Kumar was found to be owner of Scooter No. PCP-1908. The motorcycle (HR-41-2880) was owned by Rajkishan and insured with United Insurance Company. Sukhwant Singh (motorcycle driver) did not contest the pe88on and did not give evidence.

5.

Ini8ally, Jaswinder Singh was impleaded as respondent No.1 being the driver of scooter No. PCP-1906, and Pawan Kumar was impleaded as respondent No.2, its owner. It was further stated that the par8culars of the insurer of the said scooter would be disclosed by respondents No.1 and

2. Subsequently, the claim pe88on was amended in view of the police inves8ga8on, which revealed that the accident had, in fact, been caused by scooter No. PCP-1908 and not scooter No. PCP-1906. Accordingly, Pawan Kumar (respondent N: 2 (a) was found to be the owner of scooter No. PCP1908, while Preet Mohinder Singh Sodhi, the owner of scooter No. PCP1906, was impleaded as respondent No.2(b). 6.

It also emerged during trial that scooter No. PCP-1906 was not insured. Besides, Sukhwant Singh (driver of motorcycle No. HR-41-2880), Raj Kishan (its owner), and United India Insurance Company (its insurer) were impleaded as respondents No.4 to 6.

7.1 In his wriHen statement, respondent No.1, Jaswinder Singh, categorically denied driving scooter No. PCP-1906 or having any connec8on with it, and therefore contended that the claim pe88on was not maintainable against him. 7.2 Similarly, respondent No.2(b), Preet Mohinder Singh Sodhi, owner of scooter No. PCP-1906, denied any involvement of his vehicle in the accident, asser8ng that as per the police inves8ga8on, the accident was caused by scooter No. PCP-1908, which had been seized and against which the challan was filed.


7.3 Respondent N: 5 i.e., owner of motor-cycle repudiated claim by submiKng that his vehicle was duly insured at the 8me of accident. 7.4 Above respondents accordingly sought dismissal of the claim pe88on.

7.5 Respondent N:4 - Driver of motor-cycle did not contest the pe88on and was proceeded ex-parte. 8.

In the wriHen statement filed by respondent No.6, the insurer of the motorcycle, it was pleaded that the accident had occurred solely due to the negligence of respondent No.1, the driver of the scooter, who had come to the wrong side of the road and collided with the motorcycle. On this basis, the insurer sought exemp8on from the liability to pay any compensa8on. 9.

A@er framing issues and considering the evidence, the learned Tribunal held that the accident was caused by the rash and negligent driving of scooter No. PCP-1906 by respondent No.1, Jaswinder Singh. It further found that the said scooter was owned by respondent No.2(b) Preet Mohinder Singh Sodhi, and was not insured. The Tribunal assessed the compensa8on payable to the claimants at ₹1,92,000/-. Accordingly, by award dated 17.02.1998, the Tribunal directed that the said amount, along with interest, be paid to the claimants by respondents No.1 and 2(b) jointly and severally.

10.

Aggrieved by the aforesaid award, Jaswinder Singh and Preet Mohinder Singh have preferred the present two appeals. 11.

The appeals have been contested only by the claimants; and by the insurance company of motorcycle. The driver as well as the owner of the motorcycle No.HR 41-2880 were proceeded against ex-parte. 12.

Learned counsel appearing for appellant-Jaswinder Singh contends that, as per the FIR as well as the case ini8ally pleaded by the claimants, the scooter involved in the accident was scooter No. PCP-1906.


The claimants did not disclose the involvement of scooter No. PCP-1908. It is submiHed that scooter No. PCP-1908 was, in fact, recovered from appellant-Jaswinder Singh, who had no concern whatsoever with scooter No. PCP-1906, and therefore he cannot be held liable to pay any compensa8on. 13.

Conversely, learned counsel represen8ng appellant-Preet Mohinder Singh Sodhi submits that he is the owner of scooter No. PCP-1906 and has no connec8on with scooter No. PCP-1908. He argues that, as per the police inves8ga8on, it was scooter No. PCP-1908 which was involved in the accident. He further relies upon his own tes8mony as RW3, wherein he categorically deposed that he had never gone towards Pehowa in his life8me, nor had he ever driven his scooter in that direc8on. He also tes8fied that he never handed over scooter No. PCP-1906 to Jaswinder Singh or to any other person, and that he has always driven the said scooter himself. 14.

Counsels for both appellants further contend that the sole witness examined by the claimants on the aspect of negligence was AW3 Virender Kumar, the author of the FIR. In his tes8mony, Virender squarely aHributed negligence to the driver of motorcycle No. HR-41-2880, alleging that it was due to his rash and negligent driving that the accident occurred. Significantly, this tes8mony was not challenged in cross-examina8on by the insurer. Moreover, the driver of the motorcycle, Sukhwant Singh, neither contested the claim pe88on before the Tribunal nor entered the witness box to rebut the allega8ons of negligence on his part. In these circumstances, it is urged that the appeals filed by both appellants be allowed and the award against them be set aside.

15.

On the other hand, learned Legal Aid Counsel appearing for the claimants submits that, on account of the dispute between the scooter and the motorcycle as to which vehicle was responsible for the accident, the claimants have been deprived of compensa8on 8ll date. A prayer is, therefore, made for early award of the compensa8on in favour of the claimants.

 
16.

This court has considered submissions of both the sides and have appraised the en8re record.

17.

On behalf of the claimants, three witnesses were examined: AW1 (Santro), AW2 (Rajkishan - owner of the motorcycle), and AW3 (Varinder Kumar - author of the FIR and an eyewitness). On behalf of the respondents, both appellants (Jaswinder Singh and Preet Mohinder Singh Sodhi) gave evidence. The only independent eyewitness for the claimants was AW3 Varinder.

18.

AW3's evidence is crucial. Although in the FIR, he ini8ally implicated the scooter driver, but in his tes8mony, he unequivocally aHributed the cause of the collision to the rash and negligent driving of the rider of the motorcycle (Sukhwant Singh), who aHempted to overtake a parked truck and thereby caused the oncoming scooter to collide with the motorcycle. During cross-examina8on, AW3 confirmed that he had informed the police that the motorcyclist was at fault. AW3's tes8mony remained unrebuHed. Notably, the insurance company did not cross-examine AW3 on this crucial point, and the motorcycle driver did not give evidence to contradict AW3.

19.

In a civil claim founded on preponderance of probability, the court must accept credible and unrebuHed eyewitness tes8mony unless there is cogent reason to reject it. The Tribunal's conclusion that the scooter (PCP-1906) was solely at fault rests largely on the contents of FIR and that said scooter not being insured, there was manipula8on; but FIR cannot automa8cally override a credible, consistent, and unrebuHed eyewitness account given in court, par8cularly when it is scooter number PCP 1908, which was seized from respondent N: 1 Jaswinder in accidented condi8on. When the eyewitness has made a categorical statement and when that tes8mony stands unchallenged, the same must be given substan8al weight. The Tribunal's wholesale rejec8on of AW3's tes8mony without adequate reason is unsustainable.

 
20.

Applying the above principles, this court finds that on the balance of probabili8es, the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving by the rider of the motorcycle (Sukhwant Singh) in aHemp8ng to overtake a parked truck; and the oncoming scooter collided with the motorcycle as a consequence. The Tribunal's finding that the scooter driver/owner (Jaswinder and Preet Mohinder - appellants herein) were responsible is, therefore, reversed.

21.

Consequently, the appeals preferred by Jaswinder Singh and Preet Mohinder Singh Sodhi are allowed. The award dated 17.02.1998 is set aside to the extent of holding appellants Jaswinder Singh and Preet Mohinder Singh as liable to pay the compensa8on. It is held that the driver, owner and insurer of motorcycle No. HR-41-2880 (the pares impleaded as respondents No.4, 5 & 6 before the Tribunal) shall be jointly and severally liable to sa8sfy the Tribunal's award of ₹1,92,000/- along with interest as provided in the Tribunal's award.

22.

There being no appeal by the claimants against the quantum assessed by the Tribunal, so the quantum stands undisturbed. Par8es shall act in accordance with this order.

15.09.2025 (DEEPAK GUPTA) Yogesh JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned:

Yes/No Whether reportable:

Yes/No