IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

227 Date of decision: 09.02.2026 FAO-2775-2015(O&M)

Mahi Pal ...Appellant(s)

Vs.

Ravinder @ Kala & Others ...Respondent(s)

***

CORAM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA Present:- Mr. G.C. Shahpuri, Advocate for the appellant.

Mr. Punit Jain, Advocate for respondent No.3.

***

NIDHI GUPTA, J.

CM-8552-CII-2015 This is an application under Section 5 of Limitation Act for condonation of delay of 15 days in filing the appeal.

After going through the contents of the application, which is supported by affidavit of the appellant, the same is allowed subject to all just exceptions and delay of 15 days in filing the present appeal is condoned.

MAIN CASE Present appeal has been filed by injured-claimant seeking enhancement of compensation of Rs.1,99,640/- awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Palwal (hereinafter ‘the learned Tribunal’) vide Award dated 10.12.2014 passed in MACT Case No.65 dated 15.06.2012 filed under Sections 166 and 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act (hereinafter “the Act”).

2. Brief facts of the case are that the ld. Tribunal on the basis of pleadings and oral & documentary evidence adduced by the parties, concluded that the appellant had suffered injuries in a motor vehicular accident that took place on 22.03.2012 due to the rash and negligent driving of motorcycle bearing registration No.HR-52-B-5107 (hereinafter “the offending vehicle”) being driven by respondent No.1, owned by respondent No.2 and insured by respondent No.3. The said compensation has been awarded along with interest @ 6% per annum. Respondents were held jointly and severally liable for payment of compensation amount. However, the learned Tribunal had also found the appellant to be guilty of contributory negligence to the extent of 50%.

3. It is inter alia submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that the Tribunal was in patent error in holding the appellant liable for contributory negligence as the learned Tribunal has given a clear finding that the respondent No.1 was negligent in driving the offending vehicle. It is submitted that therefore, the appellant could not have been simultaneously held to be negligent. It is contended that moreover, no plea of contributory negligence was taken by the respondents. As such, in the absence of plea to this effect, no such finding could have been given by the Tribunal. Even no issue was framed regarding contributory negligence.

4. Ld. Counsel further submits that the findings on issue no. 1 regarding contributory negligence are totally wrong, illegal and deserve to be set aside. It is argued that FIR was recorded immediately after the accident against respondent no. 1/driver of the offending vehicle. The factum of pendency of criminal trial against the respondent no.1 also proves that the accident was caused by rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by respondent no. 1. It is settled proposition of law that registration of criminal case against driver of offending vehicle for causing the accident by rash and negligent driving is the prima facie proof that the accident was result of rashness and negligence on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle. Moreover, in the present case neither the driver nor the owner has entered the witness box to put forth his version as to how the accident occurred. Even the respondents no. 1 & 2 did not care to rebut the stand taken by the appellant. Thus, evidence of the appellant remained unshaken. As such, it is clear and an adverse inference can be drawn against the respondents no 1 & 2; and the version of the appellant ought to have been accepted by the Id. Tribunal.

5. Ld. Counsel further submits that the learned Tribunal has grossly erred in law while coming to the conclusion that accident was a head on collusion and appellant was equally responsible for the accident. Learned counsel submits that no evidence has been led of contributory negligence of the injured-appellant. Thus, the unrebutted evidence has to