Punjab-Haryana High Court
New India Assurance Company Ltd vs Parmod Singh And Ors on 13 November, 2025
CR-8166-2025 (O&M)
-:1:-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
(116) CR-8166-2025 (O&M)
Date of decision:-13.11.2025
The New India Assurance Company Limited
... Petitioner
Versus
Parmod Singh and others
... Respondents
****
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIRINDER AGGARWAL
Argued by :-
Mr. Vinod Gupta, Advocate
for the petitioner.
****
VIRINDER AGGARWAL, J. (ORAL)
1. The present revision petition has been instituted by the petitioner-'The New India Assurance Company' under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, invoking the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court, for setting aside the impugned order dated 15.04.2025 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Panchkula. By the said order, the Tribunal declined the petitioner's application seeking a direction to respondents No. 2 to 4 to appear in person for the purpose of identification, and simultaneously dismissed the petitioner's application seeking a mandate upon the said respondents to furnish the requisite documents. The petitioner contends that the Tribunal failed to appreciate that such directions were necessary 'ex debito justitiae' (as a matter of justice) to ensure proper adjudication of the claim and to prevent any possible prejudice resulting from non-verification 1 of 10 ::: Downloaded on - 15-11-2025 23:37:07 ::: CR-8166-2025 (O&M) -:2:- of parties and withholding of relevant material. It is urged that the refusal of the Tribunal runs contrary to the principles of 'audi alteram partem' (hear the other side) and undermines the petitioner's right to a fair opportunity to contest the claim. The impugned order is thus assailed as being perverse and arbitrary.
2. It is the contention of the petitioner that respondents No. 1 to 5 instituted a claim petition before the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Panchkula, seeking compensation on account of the death of Mrs. Nazreen Nisha Ali, who succumbed to injuries sustained in a motor vehicular accident dated 27.10.2010. The said claim petition was initially allowed and compensation amounting to ₹1,04,19,880/- was awarded vide Award dated 07.02.2014. However, in 'FAO-3876-2014', this Court set aside the Award and remanded the matter to the Tribunal for a fresh adjudication, specifically directing that the relationship of respondents No. 1 to 4 with the deceased be duly ascertained prior to determination of compensation.
2.1. Pursuant to the remand, the petitioner appeared before the Tribunal and moved an application praying for a direction to respondents No. 2 to 4 to produce documents establishing their identity before being permitted to adduce evidence. After contest, the Tribunal disposed of the said application through a common order dated 15.04.2025. 2.2. The impugned order is assailed on the grounds that the learned Tribunal failed to adhere to and give effect to the mandate contained in the remand order passed by this Court in the aforesaid FAO. It is urged that the claim petition could validly proceed only after conclusively determining the 2 of 10 ::: Downloaded on - 15-11-2025 23:37:08 ::: CR-8166-2025 (O&M) -:3:- identity and relationship of the claimants with the deceased. That forms the sine qua non for entitlement to compensation. The petitioner further submits that permitting claimants No. 2 to 4 to lead evidence through video conferencing, without first establishing their identity in compliance with the remand directions, amounts to a clear deviation from the order of this Court and undermines the very purpose for which the matter was remitted. The petitioner, therefore, contends that the impugned order suffers from material irregularity and misdirection, warranting interference in the exercise of supervisory jurisdiction.
3. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner at considerable length and have meticulously examined the entire paper-book.
4. A careful perusal of the impugned order further reveals that the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal has articulated its reasoning in paragraph No. 5 thereof. The relevant portion of the impugned order, wherein the Tribunal sets out the rationale for its conclusions, reads as under:-
"The application filed by the applicants/claimants No.2 to 4 with the prayer to give them opportunity to lead evidence has been allowed by the Tribunal vide the detailed order of even date. Once the claimants No.2 to 4 start leading the evidence, certainly they would prove their identity as the daughters of deceased Nazreen Nisha Ali. In order to prove their identity, they would submit on record proofs of identification and their relationship with deceased Nazreen Nisha Ali. In case any doubt is entertain by the learned counsel for the claimant No.1 Parmod Singh or the learned counsel for the respondent No.3 with regard to identity of the claimants No.2 to 4 in the course of the evidence to be led by them, such documents of identity can be verified through the process of the Court or 3 of 10 ::: Downloaded on - 15-11-2025 23:37:08 ::: CR-8166-2025 (O&M) -:4:- at their own level by the claimant Parmod Singh or the respondent No.3. In other words, appearance the claimants No.2 to 4 before the Tribunal prior to leading the evidence is not required at all. Hence, the application filed by the claimant Parmod Singh with the prayer to direct the claimants No.2 to 4 to appear in person before the Tribunal prior to availing the opportunity to lead the evidence is hereby dismissed."
5. In the said paragraph, the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal has categorically recorded that, while leading their evidence, respondents No. 2 to 4 are required to prove their identity as daughters of the deceased, Mrs. Nazreen Nisha Ali. To that end, they are directed to place on record appropriate documents establishing both their identity and their relationship with the deceased. It is well-settled law that the strict procedural rigors of the CPC do not apply to proceedings before a Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. Such proceedings are summary in nature, and the Tribunal is vested with the discretion to devise its own procedure for conducting inquiry and passing an award in accordance with the principles of justice and equity.
5.1. The Tribunal has, therefore, expressly mandated that respondents No. 2 to 4 lead evidence concerning their identity and submit supporting proof regarding their relationship with the deceased. Consequently, there is no non-compliance or disobedience of the directions issued by this Court in the FAO. The petitioner remains fully entitled to cross-examine the witnesses to test and challenge the veracity of their claim regarding identity and relationship with the deceased. 5.2. With regard to the allowance of respondents No. 2 to 4 to depose through video conferencing, it is pertinent to note that such evidence 4 of 10 ::: Downloaded on - 15-11-2025 23:37:08 ::: CR-8166-2025 (O&M) -:5:- is being recorded in accordance with the Rules governing recording of evidence through video conferencing, as prescribed by this Court, which are reproduced here-in-below for ready reference:-
8. Examination of persons (Through Video Conferencing) 8.1 Any person being examined, including a witness shall, before being examined through video conferencing, produce and file proof of identity by submitting an identity document issued or duly recognized by the Government of India, State Government, Union Territory, or in the absence of such a document, an affidavit attested by any of the authorities referred to in Section 139 of the CPC or Section 297 of the CrPC, as the case maybe. The affidavit will inter alia state that the person, who is shown to be the party to the proceedings or as a witness, is the same person, who is to depose at the virtual hearing. A copy of the proof of identity or affidavit, as the case may be, will be made available to the opposite party.
8.2 The person being examined will ordinarily be examined during the working hours of the concerned Court or at such time as the Court may deem fit. The oath will be administered to the person being examined by the Coordinator at the Court Point.
8.3 Where the person being examined, or the accused to be tried, is in custody, the statement or, as the case may be, the testimony, may be recorded through video conferencing. The Court shall provide adequate opportunity to the under-trial prisoner to consult in
5 of 10 ::: Downloaded on - 15-11-2025 23:37:08 ::: CR-8166-2025 (O&M) -:6:- privacy with their counsel before, during and after the video conferencing.
8.4 Subject to the provisions for examination of witnesses contained in the Evidence Act, before the examination of the witness, the documents, if any, sought to be relied upon shall be transmitted by the applicant to the witness, so that the witness acquires familiarity with the said documents. The applicant will file an acknowledgement with the Court in this behalf.
8.5 If a person is examined with reference to a particular document then the summons to witness must be accompanied by a duly certified photocopy of the document. The original document should be exhibited at the Court Point in accordance with the deposition of the concerned person being examined.
8.6 The Court would be at liberty to record the demeanour of the person being examined.
8.7 The Court will note the objections raised during the deposition of the person being examined and rule on them.
8.8 The Court shall obtain the signature of the person being examined on the transcript once the examination is concluded. The signed transcript will form part of the record of the judicial proceedings. The signature on the transcript of the person being examined shall be obtained in either of the following ways:
8.8.1 If digital signatures are available at both the concerned Court Point and Remote Point, the soft copy of the transcript digitally signed by 6 of 10 ::: Downloaded on - 15-11-2025 23:37:08 ::: CR-8166-2025 (O&M) -:7:- the presiding Judge at the Court Point shall be sent by the official email to the Remote Point where a print out of the same will be taken and signed by the person being examined. A scanned copy of the transcript digitally signed by the Coordinator at the Remote Point would be transmitted by official email of the Court Point. The hard copy of the signed transcript will be dispatched after the testimony is over, preferably within three days by the Coordinator at the Remote Point to the Court Point by recognized courier/ registered speed post. 8.8.2 If digital signature are not available, the printout of the transcript shall be signed by the presiding Judge and the representative of the parties, if any, at the Court Point and shall be sent in non-editable scanned format to the official email account of the Remote Point, where a printout of the same will be taken and signed by the person examined and countersigned by the Coordinator at the Remote Point. A noneditable scanned format of the transcript so signed shall be sent by the Coordinator of the Remote Point to the official email account of the Court Point, where a print out of the same will be taken and shall be made a part of the judicial record. The Hard copy would also be dispatched preferably within three days by the Coordinator at the Remote 7 of 10 ::: Downloaded on - 15-11-2025 23:37:08 ::: CR-8166-2025 (O&M) -:8:- Point to the Court Point by recognized courier/ registered speed post.
8.9 An audio-visual recording of the examination of person examined shall be preserved. An encrypted master copy with hash value shall be retained as a part of the record.
8.10 The Court may, at the request of a person to be examined, or on its own motion, taking into account the best interests of the person to be examined, direct appropriate measures to protect the privacy of the person examined bearing in mind aspects such as age, gender, physical condition and recognized customs and practices.
8.11 The Coordinator at the Remote Point shall ensure that no person is present at the Remote Point, save and except the person being examined and those whose presence is deemed administratively necessary by the Coordinator for the proceedings to continue. 8.12 The Court may also impose such other conditions as are necessary in a given set of facts for effective recording of the examination (especially to ensure compliance with Rule 5.6.4) 8.13 The examination Shall, as far as practicable, proceed without interruption or the grant of unnecessary adjournments. However, the Court or the Commissioner as the case may be, will be at liberty to determine whether an adjournment should be granted, and if so, on what terms.
8 of 10 ::: Downloaded on - 15-11-2025 23:37:08 ::: CR-8166-2025 (O&M) -:9:- 8.14 The Court shall be guided by the provisions of the CPC and Chapter XXIII, Part B of the CrPC, the Evidence Act and the IT Act while examining a person through video conferencing.
8.15 Where a Required Person is not capable of reaching the Court Point or the Remote Point due to sickness or physical infirmity, or presence of the required person cannot be secured without undue delay or expense, the Court may authorize the conduct of video conferencing from the place at which such person is located. In such circumstances the Court may direct the use of portable video conferencing system. Authority in this behalf may be given to the concerned Coordinator and/or any person deemed fit by the Court.
8.16 Subject to such orders as the Court may pass, in case any party or person authorized by the party is desirous of being physically present at the Remote Point at the time of recording of the testimony, such a party shall make its own arrangement for appearance / representation at the Remote Point.
6. The recording of testimony through video conferencing is permissible under the procedural rules and does not suffer from any illegality or procedural infirmity. There is, therefore, no ground to allege that the learned Tribunal has exercised its jurisdiction in a perverse or improper manner. The proceedings before the Tribunal are summary in nature, and the Tribunal is empowered to adopt such measures as are necessary to ensure the fair and expeditious adjudication of claims.
9 of 10 ::: Downloaded on - 15-11-2025 23:37:08 ::: CR-8166-2025 (O&M) -:10:- 6.1. In view of the foregoing, it is held that the present civil revision petition is devoid of any merit, and the same is accordingly dismissed. The parties are directed to bear their own costs.
7. It is, however, clarified that the observations and findings recorded here-in-above are not to be construed, directly or indirectly, as an expression of opinion on the merits of the substantive dispute between the parties. The remarks are confined strictly to the adjudication of the present revision petition and the limited issues arising for consideration herein. Nothing stated in this order shall prejudice, impede, or otherwise influence the rights, remedies, or contentions of either party during the final adjudication of the claim proceedings or in any other proceedings on merits. The parties shall remain at full liberty to advance all permissible pleas before the competent forum, which shall adjudicate the same uninfluenced by any observation contained in this order.
8. In view of the fact that the main revision petition stands disposed of, all pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall also stand disposed of accordingly, without the necessity of passing any further or separate orders.
( VIRINDER AGGARWAL)
13.11.2025 JUDGE
Gaurav Sorot
Whether reasoned / speaking? Yes / No
Whether reportable? Yes / No
10 of 10
::: Downloaded on - 15-11-2025 23:37:08 :::