##PAGE1##

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

FAO-6604-2016

Sameer Gaba . . . . Appellant Vs.

Priyanka and Others . . . . Respondents

****

Reserved on: 03.09.2026 Pronounced on: 07.09.2026

Pronounced fully/opera3ve part: Fully ****

CORAM: HON’BLE MR JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA

Argued by:- Mr. Prateek Mahajan, Advocate and Ms. Arche Anant, Advocate for

the appellant.

Mr. Vinod Chaudhari, Advocate for the respondents.

****

DEEPAK GUPTA, J.

The appellant, who was arrayed as the driver of car bearing registra%on No.HR-08M-0003, has preferred the present appeal against the award dated 27.05.2016 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kurukshetra, to the limited extent that the Insurance Company has been granted a right to recover the compensa%on payable by it from the

appellant-driver and the owner of the vehicle.

2. The claim pe%%on arose out of a motor vehicular accident dated 31.08.2015, in which Jivika, aged about nine months, lost her life. The Tribunal awarded compensa%on of ₹2,49,500/- along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum and held the appellant-driver and the owner of the offending car jointly and severally liable. The insurer was directed to sa%sfy the award in the first instance, with liberty to recover the amount from the

NEETIKA TUTEJA 2026.09.07 17:17 I attest to the accuracy and

integrity of this document

FAO-6604-2016

driver and the owner, on the finding that the appellant did not possess a valid and effec%ve driving licence authorising him to drive the vehicle in

India.

Conten(cid:6)ons of the appellant

3.1 Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant had, from the very incep%on, denied that he was driving the offending vehicle at the %me of the accident. The appellant entered the witness box and tes%fied to that effect. It is contended that the owner of the vehicle did not appear as a witness to establish that the appellant had been employed

or authorised by him to drive the vehicle.

3.2 It is further submi=ed that Pankaj Kumar, who had appeared before the Tribunal as PW1, was subsequently examined as a prosecu%on witness in the criminal trial and stated that he could not see the person, who was driving the offending vehicle. A cer%fied copy of his statement recorded before the criminal Court has been produced before this Court by way of addi%onal evidence as Annexure P-1. The judgment passed by the criminal Court acqui@ng the appellant has similarly been placed on record as Annexure P-2. On the strength of these documents, it is contended that the iden%ty of the appellant as the driver of the offending vehicle stands seriously discredited and that the finding returned by the Tribunal cannot

be sustained.

3.3 The final submission is that, even assuming that the appellant was driving the car, he had produced a driving licence issued by the competent authority in Victoria, Australia, which was valid up to 11.04.2017 and authorised him to drive a car. The Tribunal is stated to have erred in ignoring the said licence merely because it had not been issued or endorsed by an Indian licensing authority. On these premises, the appellant

seeks exonera%on from the liability imposed upon him under the award.

Conten(cid:6)ons of the insurer NEETIKA TUTEJA 2026.09.07 17:17

I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Page N: 2 of total 9 Pages

FAO-6604-2016

4.1 Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company submits that the findings recorded in a criminal prosecu%on are neither binding upon the Claims Tribunal nor determina%ve of proceedings under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. A claim pe%%on is decided on the touchstone of preponderance of probabili%es, whereas a criminal charge is

required to be proved beyond reasonable doubt.

4.2 It is further submi=ed that the tes%mony given by a witness in a separate criminal proceeding cannot automa%cally be read as substan%ve evidence in the claim proceedings. The Tribunal was required to determine the ma=er on the basis of the