IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Reserved on:19.02.2026 Pronounced on: 26.02.2026 Uploaded on: 27.02.2026 Satkar Singh …Appellant Versus Gulshan Singh(since Deceased) Through LRs and another …Respondents CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE VIRINDER AGGARWAL Present : Mr. S.P.Garg, Advocate for the appellant.

Mr. Neeraj Khanna, Advocate for Mr. Ravinder Arora, Advocate for the respondent No.2/Insurance Company.

VIRINDER AGGARWAL,J.

1. The present appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is directed against the award dated 03.04.2003 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chandigarh, whereby the claim petition filed by the appellant seeking compensation of ₹5,00,000/- on account of the injuries sustained by him, in a motor vehicular accident dated 20.10.1998 was dismissed.

BACKGROUND FACTS

2. On 20.10.1998 he was driving his motorcycle from Kasauli towards Chandigarh. When he reached near Timber Trail, a Maruti car bearing registration No. HR-28-0089, driven by respondent No.1, allegedly came from the opposite direction at a high speed while overtaking another vehicle and struck against the motorcycle of the claimant. Due to the impact, the claimant fell down and sustained serious head injuries and fracture of his leg. He became unconscious and was immediately removed to PGI, Chandigarh, where he remained admitted for approximately 30 days and thereafter remained confined to bed for several months. It was specifically pleaded that the accident occurred solely due to the rash and negligent driving of respondent No.1. On account of the injuries suffered, medical treatment, pain and suffering, and alleged loss of income, the claimant sought compensation to the tune of ₹5,00,000/-.

3. Upon appreciation of the evidence, the learned Tribunal noticed that the claimant, while appearing as PW1, admitted in cross-examination that an FIR had been registered against him at the instance of the car driver and that the criminal case was pending before a court at Solan. PW2, Satvinder Singh, who appeared in support of the claimant, also admitted that a criminal case had been registered against the claimant. The learned Tribunal placed considerable reliance on the FIR, wherein it was recorded that the motorcyclist had come at a fast speed and struck against the car on the driver’s side. The learned Tribunal further observed that the claimant was descending from the hill side, whereas respondent No.1 was proceeding uphill. According to the learned Tribunal, while driving in hilly terrain, greater caution is required from a vehicle descending the slope. The learned Tribunal concluded that the claimant had failed to observe the necessary precautions and that the accident occurred due to his own rash and negligent driving. The learned Tribunal also disbelieved the representation allegedly made by the claimant to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Solan, observing that it was made after the 7 months of the accident and that no cogent evidence was produced to prove its dispatch or receipt. No official from the concerned office was examined to substantiate the authenticity of the said complaint. Consequently, negligence was not proved against respondent No.1, and the learned Tribunal held that the claimant was not entitled to any compensation and dismissed the petition.

CONTENTIONS

4. Learned counsel for the appellant has assailed the impugned award on the ground that the learned Tribunal gravely erred in treating the mere registration of FIR against the claimant as conclusive proof of negligence, ignoring the settled principle that an FIR is not substantive evidence and that civil liability cannot be determined solely on its basis. It is further submitted that during the pendency of the present appeal, the claimant has been acquitted in the criminal case arising out of the same occurrence vide judgment dated 10.04.2009 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Kasauli. An application under Order XLI Rule 27 CP