IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH (i) FAO-2486-2001 Satinder Kaur ...Appellant Versus M/s Jaina & Co. and others ...Respondents (ii) FAO-2485-2001 Harinder Singh ...Appellants Versus M/s Jaina & Co. and others ...Respondents Reserved on: 11.03.2026 Pronounced on: 16.03.2026 Pronounced fully/operative part: Fully CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA Argued by: Mr. Divyanshu Bansal, Advocate for Mr. J.S. Thind, Advocate for the appellant.

Mr. Shubham Gupta, Advocate for Mr. D.P. Gupta, Advocate for respondent No.3.

****

DEEPAK GUPTA, J.

These two appeals have been filed against the common award dated 22.01.2001 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Patiala, whereby separate claim petitions arising out of the same motor vehicular accident were disposed of.

2. The appellants before this Court are husband and wife, both of whom sustained injuries in a motor vehicular accident that occurred on 24.02.1997. As per their case, they along with Bachittar Singh were travelling in a Maruti car bearing registration No. PB-10-D-843 from Rajpura towards Patiala. The car was allegedly being driven by claimant Harinder Singh at a normal speed on the correct left side of the road. When they reached near village Kauli, a Jeep bearing registration No. HP-12-2417, driven by respondent No.2 Ravinder Kumar, allegedly came from the opposite direction in a rash and negligent manner, entered the wrong side of the road and collided with the Maruti car. Besides the appellants, another occupant namely Bachittar Singh also sustained injuries in the accident. The injured were shifted to Rajindra Hospital, Patiala and an FIR was registered against the jeep driver.

3. In their respective claim petitions, both appellants described the injuries sustained by them and the medical expenses incurred on their treatment. Each of them sought compensation to the tune of ₹10,00,000/-

from driver, owner and insurer of the Jeep.

4. Apart from these petitions, Harinder Singh also filed a separate claim petition seeking compensation for the damage caused to the Maruti car.

5. Respondents No.1 and 2 (driver and owner of the Jeep) filed a joint written statement. While admitting the occurrence of the accident, they denied that the same was caused due to rash and negligent driving of respondent No.2. Their case was that the Maruti car was actually being driven by Bachittar Singh, an SPO, who was under the influence of liquor and was driving in a rash and negligent manner. According to them, Bachittar Singh attempted to overtake a truck coming from the Rajpura side and, in that process, struck the Maruti car against the jeep being driven by respondent No.2 on the correct side of the road. It was further pleaded that the owner and insurer of the Maruti car had not been impleaded and that the driver of the car was not holding a valid driving licence.

6. The insurance company also contested the claim petitions by raising statutory defences and asserting that the driver of the jeep was not holding a valid and effective driving licence and that the petitions suffered from non-joinder of necessary parties.

7. Upon appreciation of the pleadings and the evidence led by the parties, the learned Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the Maruti car and not the jeep. Consequently, although it was proved that the claimants had sustained injuries in the accident, the Tribunal dismissed their claim petitions as the driver, owner and insurer of the Maruti car had not been impleaded as parties.

8. Assailing the aforesaid award, learned counsel for the appellants contends that the learned Tribunal gravely erred in appreciating the evidence on record. It is argued that undue reliance has been placed upon the judgment of the criminal Court (Ex.R10), whereby respondent No.2 was acquitted, whereas the findings recorded in a criminal case cannot be treated as determinative in civil proceedings. It is further submitted that