The judgment establishes the importance of fair play, good faith, and the duty to ensure that the process of justice is not abused. It also emphasizes the burden of proof in civil cases and the requirement for clear, unequivocal, and unimpeachable evidence beyond reasonable doubt in cases of grave consequences.

ORDER

Anil Kshetarpal, J. - The hearing of the case was held through video conferencing on account of restricted functioning of the Courts.

By this order, two above-referred connected appeals arising from a common award passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as "the Tribunal") while directing the Insurance Company to pay compensation of Rs.15,79,664/- shall stand disposed of. One appeal has been filed by the Insurance Company with a prayer to set aside the award of the Tribunal whereas in the other appeal, the claimants pray for modification of the award by way of enhancement in the compensation.

FACTS:-

1. Some facts are required to be noticed. As per the case of the claimants, Gurmeet Singh and Sarabjit Kaur are the parents of late Charandeep Singh and on the unfortunate day, Pargat Singh and Charandeep Singh were travelling from Village Bhinder Kalan to Jagraon on a motorcycle bearing No.PB-29J-6108. Pargat Singh was driving the vehicle whereas Charandeep Singh was on the pillion. Their friends Jobanpreet Singh and Jhirmat Singh were following them on a separate motorcycle. When they reached near Pardesi Dhaba at G.T. Road, Moga at about 9:00 AM, a Scorpio car (a sports Utility Vehicle) bearing registration No.PB-3AL-0127, which was being driven rashly and negligently by respondent No.l (Jashandeep Singh) came from the back side at a very high speed and hit the motorcycle from behind. Charandeep Singh and Pargat Singh, along with their motorcycle, fell down on the road. Pargat Singh received simple injuries whereas Charandeep Singh sustained grevious injuries on his head and abdomen and their motorcycle also got damaged. The driver of the Scorpio vehicle stopped and came to Pargat Singh and disclosed his name as Jashandeep Singh son of Malkiat Singh and confessed his guilt and offered him to reach at a settlement. Since Jobanpreet Singh, Jhirmat Singh were busy in taking care of Pargat Singh and Charandeep Singh, in the meantime, the driver of the Scorpio vehicle ran away from the spot while leaving his vehicle at the spot. Jhirmat Singh and a few other persons, after arranging a vehicle, took the injured to Civil Hospital, Jagraon, but as Charandeep Singh had sustained serious injuries, he was immediately referred and taken to DMC Hospital, Ludhiana on 21.02.2019 itself. On the next day, i.e. 22.02.2019, the parents of Charandeep Singh got him discharged in order to take him to PGI, Chandigarh, but Charandeep Singh died on the way. An FIR No.33 dated 23.02.2019, alleging the commission of offences by respondent No.1 under Section 279, 337, 427, 304-AIPC was registered.

1.1. Respondents No.1 and 2 while filing their written statement claimed that the claimants have not come to the Court with clean hands and the accident did not occur due to the negligence of the driver of the Scorpio vehicle but rather it had occurred due to their own negligence as three persons namely Gurmeet Singh, Sarabjit Kaur and Charandeep Singh were riding on a single motorcycle and lost balance due to triple riding and stuck against the Scorpio vehicle. The injured persons were got admitted in Civil Hospital, Jagraon by respondent No.1. The Insurance Company contested the petition and pleaded that the petition has been filed by the claimants in collusion with respondent No.1 and 2. Some other objections were also taken.

ISSUES:-

2. The Tribunal, after appreciating the pleading, framed the following issues:-

"1. Whether Charandeep Singh had died in a motor vehicular accident on 21.02.2019 in the area of near Pardesi Dhaba, Moga-Jagraon G.T. Road, Jagraon caused by respondent No.l while driving Scorpio No.PB-03AL-0127 in a rash and negligent manner? OPP

2. Whether the claimants are entitled to compensation. If so, to what amount and from whom? OPP

3. Whether the claims have no locus-standi to file the present petition? OPR

4. Whether the respondent No. 1 was not holding a valid and effecting driving licence at the time of allege