No Contributory Negligence Can Be Attributed Merely Because Vehicle Was Unregistered 'Jugaad': Punjab & Haryana High Court

The Punjab & Haryana High Court has held that accident claim cannot be denied merely for the reason that the Claimant was driving an unregistered Jugaad vehicle without there being any overt act attributable to the cause of the accident.

The Court was considering an Appeal seeking enhancement against an award passed by the MACT whereby compensation to the tune of ₹62,564/- was awarded under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

The single bench of Justice Pankaj Jain observed, "It is not in dispute that the FIR was registered against the driver of the U.P. Roadways bus. It has come on record that the claimant as well as his brother were travelling only at the speed of 20 Kilometre per hour when they were hit by the offending vehicle which was being driven at a very high speed. Merely for the reason that the claimant was driving a Jugaad vehicle without there being any overt act attributable which led to cause of accident, the Tribunal ought not have held the appellant negligent."

The Appellant was represented by Advocate Varun Parkash while the Respondent was represented by Advocate Sandeep Kotla.

Facts of the Case

The claimant had approached MACT claiming that he was rendered disabled to the extent of 50% owing to the injuries suffered in an accident caused due to rash and negligent driving of the Respondent No.1. The MACT Tribunal found both the Claimant as well as the driver of the offending vehicle negligent to the extent of 50% and having caused the accident.

Counsel for the Appellant submitted that the fact that the offending vehicle was the solitary cause of the accident was fully proved and recorded in the FIR. He contended that the Appellant was held to have contributory negligence merely for the reason that he was driving Jugaad i.e. the vehicle without any registration.

Reasoning By Court

The Court concluded that merely because the vehicle was a 'Jugaad' one, it cannot be held that it caused the accident without there being any overt act attributable to the same.

"In view thereof, this Court finds that the findings recorded by the Tribunal on issue No.1 need to be modified. Respondent No.1 is held to be responsible for causing accident which led to injuries to the claimant," the Court noted.

The compensation was enhanced and the Appeal was accordingly allowed.

Cause Title: Bijender Singh vs. Raj Kumar & Ors. (2025:PHHC:042248)

Click here to read/ download Order