Holding

In motor accident compensation claims, the plaintiff need not meet the criminal standard of proof, and neither a delay in filing nor the absence of police testimony defeats the claim, rendering the Tribunal’s award valid.

Summary

Parmeshwari, a pillion passenger on a motorcycle, suffered a fractured right leg and 32% permanent disability after being hit by a scooter. She filed a complaint with the Superintendent of Police (Hisar) and later a compensation claim, which the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal awarded Rs.1,36,547 with 9% interest. The High Court set aside the award, citing the absence of a police officer’s testimony, questioning the reliability of a witness who helped her to a doctor, and deeming the four‑month delay in filing the claim as a device to obtain money. The Supreme Court held that the filing of the complaint was undisputed, the witness’s testimony could not be dismissed merely because he did not file the complaint, and that a motor accident claim is governed by the preponderance of probability, not the criminal standard of proof. Consequently, the Court quashed the High Court’s order, restored the Tribunal’s award, and directed payment of the compensation.

Issues considered

The effect of a four‑month delay in filing a motor accident compensation claim.
The necessity of police officer testimony to prove the complaint in a motor accident claim.
The admissibility and credibility of a lay witness who assisted the claimant.
The applicable standard of proof in motor accident compensation proceedings.
Whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal was excessive.

Legislation cited

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988s. 166

Subjects

motor accidentcompensationMotor Vehicles ActSection 166delay in filingstandard of proofwitness credibilityTribunal awardHigh Court reversal

Judgment

[2011) 1 S.C.R. 1096

A PARMESHWARI
v.
AMIR CHAND & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 1082 of 2011)
JANUARY 28, 2011
B
[G.S. SINGHVI AND ASOK KUMAR GANGULY, JJ.]

T-'" ,
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - s.166 - Motor Accident -
Right leg of appellant-claimant fractured - Appellant suffered
c 32% permanent disability- Her leg was shortened by two inch
- PW1, one of the witnesses to the accident, took the appellant
to the doctor's clinic from where she was referred ·to a Nursing
Home in Hisar - Appellant filed complaint in the office of SSP
Hisar which was sent in original by SSP Hisar to SSP
D Hanumangarh - Compensation claim - Tribunal awarded to
the appellant, compensation of Rs.1,36,5471- along with 9% .,,, .
interest - High Court set aside the award of the Tribunal, inter
alia, on the ground that none from the office of SSP,
Hanumangarh came to prove the complaint; that the
E testimony of PW. 1 was not reliable and further that the claim
petition was filed four months after the accident -Held: Filing
of complaint by the appellant is not disputed as it appears
from the evidence of PW.3, the Assistant Complaint Clerk in
the office of Superintendent of Police, Hisar - Consequently,
the decision of the Tribunal cannot be reversed on the ground
F
that nobody came from the office of SSP to prove the
complaint - PW1 is not related to the appellant but as a good
citizen, he extended his help to her to ensure that she got
medical treatment - His evidence cannot be disbelieved just
because he did not file a complaint himself - Finding of the
G High Court that as the claim petition was filed after four months r
of the accident, the same was "a device to grab money from
the insurance company" was perverse in the absence of any
material - In a road accident claim, strict principles of proof

H 1096
•
PARMESHWARI v. AMIR CHAND & ORS. 1097

in a criminal case are not attracted - Judgment of High Court A
>- quashed and that of the Tribunal is restored.

The appellant was going on a Motor Cycle sitting on
the pillion seat, when respondent no.2, came from the
other direction in a scooter and hit her right leg as a result B
of which she fell down and her right leg was fractured
and she received multiple injuries. The appellant suffered
32% permanent disability and in view of the combined
fracture of both bones of her right leg, her leg was
shortened by two inch.
c
The accident was witnessed by certain persons and
one of them, PW1, took the appellant fo the doctor's clinic
from where she was referred to a Nursing Home in Hisar.
The appellant filed a complaint in the office of SSP Hisar
which was sent in original by SSP Hisa.r to SSP D
,i.-.~
Hanumangarh. Subsequently, the appellant filed a
compensation claim petition. On consideration of the
materials on record, the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal
awarded to the appellant, compensation of Rs.1,36,547/-
along with 9% interest. E
The High Court set aside the award of the Tribunal
on grounds that even though complaint was forwarded
to SSP Hisar and was further forwarded to SSP
Hanumangarh but none from the office of SSP,
Hanumangarh came to prove the complaint; that the F
testimony of PW.1 was not reliable and further that the
claim petition was filed four months after the accident.
The Instant appeal was filed challenging the order of the
High Court.
~
·~ G
Allowing the appeal, the Court

HELD:1. In the instant case, the compensation was
certainly not an excessive one. Rather the computation
had been made modestly. [Para 9] [1101-E]
H
1098. SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 1 S.C.R

A 2. The well considered decision of the Tribunal was
set aside by the High Court, inter alia, on the ground that -'.

even though complaint was forwarded to SSP Hisar and
was further forwarded to SSP Hanumangarh but none
from the office of SSP, Hanumangarh came to prove the
B complaint. The filing of the complaint by the appellant is
not disputed as it appears from the evidence of PW.3,
who is the Assistant Complaint Clerk in the office of
Superintendent of Police, Hisar. If the filing of the -,,.-~

complaint is not disputed, the decision of the Tribunal
c cannot be reversed on the ground that nobody came
from the office of SSP to prove the complaint. The official
procedure in matters of proceeding with the complaint is
not within the control of the appellant, who is an ordinary
village woman. She is not from the upper echelon of
D society. The general apathy of the administration in
dealing with complaints lodged by ordinary citizens is far ..,.. .
too well known to be overlooked by High Court. In this
regard the perception of the High ·Court in disbelieving
the complaint betrays a lack of sensitized approach to the
plight of a victim in a motor accident claim case. [Para 10)
E (1101-F-H; 1102-A-B]

3. The other_ ground on which the High Court
dismissed the case was by way of disbelieving the
testimony of PW.1. Such disbelief of the High Court Is
F totally conjectural. PW1 is not related to the appellant but
as a good citizen, he extended· his help to the appellant
by helping her to reach the Doctor's chamber In order to
ensure that an injured woman gets medical treatment.
The evidence of PW1 cannot be disbelieved just because
G he did not file a complaint himself. [Para 11] [1102-C-D] ?-
,;

4. The total approach of the High Court was not
sensitized enough to appreciate the plight of the victim.
The other so-called reason in the High Court's order was
that as the claim petition was filed after four months of
H the accident, the same Is "a device to grab money from
PARMESHWARI v. AMIR CHAND & ORS. 1099 .

. the insurance company". This finding in the absence of A
any material is certainly perverse. The High Court
appears to be not cognizant of the principle that in a road
accident claim, the strict principles of proof in a criminal
case are not attracted. [Para 12) [1102-E-F]
B
Bimla Devi and others vs. Himachal Road Transport
Corporation and others [(2009) 13 sec 530) - relied on.

5. The judgment given by the High Court is not
sustainable and is therefore quashed while that of the
Tribunal is restored. [Para 13) [1103-B] C
Cas~ Law Reference:

(2009) 13 sec 530 relied on Para 12
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. D
1082 of 2011.
From the Judgment & Order dated 08.10.2009 of the High
Court of Punjab and Hayana at Chandigarh in F.A.O. No. 2484
of 2009.
E
Kanwar Udai Bhan, Dr. Kailash Chand for the Appellant.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

GANGULY, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant.
F
2. Despite service of notice on the respondent Nos.2 and
3, nobody appeared.

3. The appellant is impugning herein the judgment and
order of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana dated 8th G
# __ __,, October, 2009 in FAO No.2484 of 2009. An appeal was filed
before the High Court by the owner of the scooter, Amir Chand, .
against an award dated 12.2.2009 passed by the Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal, Fast Track Court, Hisar, awarding to
1100 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011) 1 S.C.R.

A the appellant, compensation of Rs.1,36,547/- along with 9%
interest.
,..i.,

4. The contention of the owner of the scooter, before the
High Court, was that the accident and his involvement in it was
not proved and the claim petition should have been dismissed.
B
The High Court ultimately upheld the appeal of the owner and
set aside the findings of the Tribunal.

5. The material facts are that on 22.01.2003 at about 12.00
noon the appellant herein, the claimant before the Tribunal,
c respondent No.1 before the High Court, was going from
Baganwala to Tosham on a Motor Cycle (No.HR 16C-8379),
driven by Balwan with the claimant on the pillion seat. When
the Motor Cycle was half a kilometer away from Baganwala,
Suresh - respondent No.2 herein, came from the other
D direction in another scooter (No.HR 20-5793) from the wrong
side and hit the right leg of the appellant as a result of which
~·
she fell down and her right leg was fractured and she received
multiple injuries. The accident was witnessed by certain persons
and one of them, Urned Singh, took the appellant to Dr. Punia's
E clinic from where she was referred to Chawla Nursing Home,
Hisar, where she remained admitted till 6.2.2003. The matter
was also reported to SSP, Hisar. Ultimately, the claim petition
was filed by her on account of her serious injuries.

6. The Tribunal in its judgment considered the evidence of
F PW.1-Umed Singh as also the evidence of Dr. Parveen
Chawla-PW.2, Dr. R.S. Dalal as PW.5 apart from examining
the appellant-PW.4 and also one Satbir Singh as PW.3. It has
come on evidence of PW.2-Dr. Parveen Chawla that on
22.1.2003 the appellant was admitted with diagnosis of fracture
G of tibia. Plating and bone grafting was done by P.W.2-Dr.
Parveen Chawla and the appellant was discharged on ..... ~

6.2.2003. The discharge card was also proved. PW.3-Satbir
Singh deposed that the appellant moved a complaint in the
office of SSP Hisar on 11.3.2003 and the same was sent in
H
PARMESHWARI v. AMIR CHAND & ORS. ·-· 1101
[ASOK KUMAR GANGULY, J.]

original on 2.4.2003 by SSP Hisar to SSP Hanumangarh. A
PW.5-Dr. R.S. Dalal also deposed that the appellant was
examined on 17.12.2003 by a Medical Board comprising of
Civil Surgeon Dr. O.P. Phogat, Orthopedic Surgeon Dr. T.S.
Bagri and Dr. Dayal himself and on examination the appellant
was found to have 32% permanent disability. In view of B
combined fracture of both bones of her right leg, her leg was
shortened by two inch. The disability certificate was also
proved.

7. The Tribunal also considered the evidence of RW.1- C
Amit Chand and RW2-Suresh Kumar. Apart from the aforesaid
evidence, the Tribunal also considered the detailed account of
the accident given by the appellant as PW.4.

8. This Court finds that on consideration of the aforesaid
materials on record, the Tribunal granted compensation to the D
appellant to the extent of Rs.1,36,547/- with interest at 9% per
annum from the date of filing of the petition till its realization.

9. This Court finds that the compensation is certainly not
an excessive one. Rather the computatipn has been made E
modestly.

10. Unfortunately, this Court finds that the said well
considered decision of the Tribunal was set aside by the High
Court, inter alia, on the ground that even though complaint was
forwarded to· SSP Hisar and was further forwarded to SSP F
Hanumangarh but none from the office of SSP, Hanumangarh
came to prove the complaint. The filing of the complaint by the
appellant is not disputed as it appears from the evidence of
PW.3-Satbir Singh, who is the Assistant Complaint Clerk in the
office of Superintendent of Police, Hisar. If the filing of the G
complaint is not disputed, the decision of the Tribunal cannot
be reversed on the ground that nobody came from the office
of SSP to prove the complaint. The official procedure in
matters of proceeding with the complaint is not within the control
of the appellant, who is an ordinary village woman. She is not H
1102 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 1 S.C.R.

A coming from the upper echelon of society. The general apathy
of the administration in dealing with complaints lodged by
~
ordinary citizens is far too well known to be overlooked by High
Court. In this regard the perception of the High Court in
disbelieving the complaint betrays a lack of sensitized
·-
B approach to the plight of a victim in a motor accident claim
case.

11. The other ground on which the High Court dismissed
the case was by way of disbelieving the testimony of Urned f'
Singh-PW.1. Such disbelief of the High Court is totally
c conjectural. Urned Singh is not related to the appellant but as
a good citizen, Urned Singh extended his help to the appellant
by helping her to reach the Doctor's chamber in order to ensure
that an injured woman gets medical treatment. The evidence
of Urned Singh cannot be disbelieved just because he did not
D file a complaint himself.
-,.. .
12. We are constrained to repeat our observation that the
total approach of the High Court, unfortunately, was not
sensitized enough to appreciate the plight of the victim. The
E other so-called reason in the High Court's order was that as
the claim petition was filed after four months of the accident,
the same is "a device to grab money from the insurance
company". This finding in the absence of any material is
certainly perverse. The High Court appears to be not cognizant
..
F of the principle that in a road accident claim, the strict principles
of proof in a criminal case are not attracted. The following
observations of this Court in Bimla Devi and others vs.
Himachal Road Transport Corporation and others [(2009) 13
sec 530] are very pertinent.
G "In a situation of this nature, the Tribunal has rightly taken
a holistic view of the matter. It was necessary to be borne >-
,,
in mind that strict proof of an accident caused by a
particular bus in a particular manner may not be possible
to be done by the claimants. The claimants were merely
H to establish their case on the touchstone of preponderance
PARMESHWARI v. AMIR CHAND & ORS. 1103
l
[ASOK-KUMAR GANGULY, J.]

of probability. The standard of proof beyond reasonable A
_._> doubt could not have been applied."

_...._' 13. This Court, therefore, is unable to sustain the judgment
given by the High Court and quashes the same and restores
that of the Tribunal.
8
14. The entire payment of the compensation amount must
be deposited with the Tribunal in terms of its award within a
' •-y- period of six weeks from today by a demand draft and
thereupon the Tribunal will immediately send notice to the
appellant and handover the demand draft to the appellant only c
within two weeks thereafter. The copy of the order may
immediately be transmitted to the Tribunal..

15. The appeal is, thus, allowed with the aforesaid
directions and observations. D
• ' "'f
B.8.8. Appeal allowed .

--
-