Court reiterates that mere allegations without reliable eye-witness testimony or timely complaint cannot substantiate claims of rash and negligent driving under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act. Holds that contradictions and delay in reporting are fatal to the claimant’s case. Judgment upholds existing precedent and serves as binding authority throughout subordinate courts in Punjab and Haryana.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | FAO/664/2002 of PRITAM KAUR Vs HARDIAL SINGH |
| CNR | PHHC010449372002 |
| Date of Registration | 04-02-2002 |
| Decision Date | 30-10-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | DISMISSED |
| Judgment Author | MR. JUSTICE PARMOD GOYAL |
| Court | High Court of Punjab and Haryana |
| Precedent Value | Binding on subordinate courts within the jurisdiction |
| Type of Law | Motor Accident Compensation/Personal Injury (Motor Vehicles Act, 1988) |
| Questions of Law | Whether compensation can be awarded without reliable proof of rash and negligent driving by the respondent. |
| Ratio Decidendi |
The High Court held that claimants must establish, by reliable and credible evidence, the fact of rash and negligent driving by the respondent to succeed in a claim under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act. In the present case, the only purported eye-witness (AW1) was not mentioned in the FIR/DDR or in the claim petition, with his version surfacing only nearly two years after the accident. The first information report was delayed, did not blame the driver, and the son of the deceased himself stated the driver was not at fault. The absence of timely and consistent accusations, reliable eyewitness account, and supporting material rendered the claim unsubstantiated, and the Tribunal’s refusal to grant compensation under Section 166 was affirmed. |
| Judgments Relied Upon | Not specified in judgment |
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by Court | Focuses on sufficiency, reliability, and consistency of eyewitness evidence and prompt reporting in accident claims. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court |
Gulzar Singh died in a road accident allegedly due to rash and negligent driving by the respondent’s bus. Claim was filed under Section 166 but the only eye-witness (AW1) was not named in the FIR/DDR or in the claim petition. The FIR/DDR was lodged after over a month, by the deceased’s son who explicitly exonerated the driver and did not mention any eyewitness. Post-mortem was not conducted. Tribunal found evidence unreliable and dismissed the claim, awarding only ‘no fault’ compensation. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts in Punjab and Haryana |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts and the Supreme Court |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Clarifies that in a Motor Accident Claim under Section 166, lack of timely lodging of FIR and absence of credible eye-witness account are fatal to the claimant’s case.
- Reiterates that belated introduction of an eye-witness, not mentioned in prior proceedings or complaint, weakens claims of rash and negligent driving.
- The presence of contradictions between the case stated in the claim petition, FIR/DDR, and evidence before the Tribunal is sufficient ground for denying compensation under Section 166.
- Lawyers must ensure that witnesses are consistently named and FIRs are timely, or risk dismissal.
- Only ‘no fault’ liability compensation will be granted in absence of proof of negligence.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The High Court examined whether the claimants substantiated their allegation that the respondent’s driver was rash and negligent.
- The sole eye-witness (AW1) appeared for the first time almost two years after the accident, with no prior reference in the FIR, DDR, or the claim petition, undermining the reliability of his testimony.
- The initial DDR, lodged after over a month, not only omitted allegation against the driver but, by the deceased’s son’s own account, held the deceased himself at fault.
- The Tribunal, having considered these gaps and inconsistencies, correctly found the evidence wanting and denied compensation under Section 166.
- The High Court saw no reason to disagree, reaffirming that compensation claims under Section 166 fail where there is neither consistent, reliable evidence of negligence nor timely complaint.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner
- Contended that the deceased was hit from behind by the respondent’s bus due to rash and negligent driving.
- Relied on the testimony of AW1 as an alleged eye-witness.
- Explained delay in filing DDR by stating that the deceased’s son (the complainant) was posted in the Army and so could not report earlier.
Respondent
- Argued that the claimants failed to establish rash and negligent act by the driver.
- Pointed to the absence of the witness in the FIR/DDR and claim petition.
- Highlighted inconsistencies and the complainant’s prior declaration that the driver was not at fault.
Factual Background
The case arose from a fatal accident on 19.11.1997, when Gulzar Singh was allegedly struck and killed by a bus belonging to Gill Transport, driven by Hardial Singh. The claimants asserted rash and negligent driving. However, the first formal complaint (DDR) was lodged over a month later by the deceased’s son, who not only did not mention any eyewitness but also absolved the driver of blame, attributing the accident to the deceased. The claim petition similarly made no reference to any eyewitness. An alleged witness appeared for the first time nearly two years later before the Tribunal. The Tribunal dismissed the claim under Section 166 but granted compensation under ‘no fault’ provisions.
Statutory Analysis
- The judgment discusses Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (requiring proof of fault/negligence for compensation).
- Reference is made to Sections 140 and 141, which entitle claimants to specified compensation on a ‘no fault’ basis.
- The judgment applied a strict standard to the evidence needed to establish liability under Section 166, in line with statutory requirements.
Dissenting / Concurring Opinion Summary
No dissenting or concurring opinions are recorded in the judgment.
Procedural Innovations
No procedural innovations are recorded in the judgment.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – Existing law on proof of negligence and evidentiary standards under Section 166, Motor Vehicles Act, is reaffirmed.