IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 241 FAO-3404-2001 (O&M) Date of decision:06.07.2026 SANTOSH AND OTHERS ...APPELLANTS VERSUS AKHTAR HUSSAIN AND OTHERS ...RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PARMOD GOYAL Present: Mr. Neeraj Mann, Advocate for appellants. Mr. D.R. Bansal, Advocate for respondent No.3. *** PARMOD GOYAL, J. (ORAL) Present appeal has been preferred by the appellants-claimants who are wife and minor sons of Suresh (hereinafter referred to as the ‘deceased’), who died in motor vehicular accident which took place on the intervening night of 25/26.03.1998, on account of rash and negligent driving by respondent No.1 while driving vehicle bearing registration No.DL-4C- 3491 (hereinafter referred to as ‘offending vehicle’), being aggrieved by dismissal of their claim petitions vide impugned award dated 02.06.2001, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Gurgaon (hereinafter referred to as ‘Tribunal’). 2. In the present case, since the main liability to pay compensation is upon respondent No.3-Insurance Company being insurer of offending vehicle, therefore, service upon private respondents has been dispensed with at this stage. SUNIL CHANDER 2026.07.09 10:15 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-3404-2001 (O&M) -2- 3. It was claimed that deceased Suresh and one Krishan were going to village Daulah from village Pilana on a new tractor being driven by deceased at a moderate speed on the proper side of the road and by following traffic signals. That when tractor had reached near a pulia situated on Farrukh Nagar – Wazirpur Road in the area of village Mohammadpur, the offending vehicle being driven by respondent No.1 in a zig-zag manner, rashly and negligently, on high speed and by flouting the norms of the traffic came from the opposite side and dashed against the tractor of the deceased on its right side. It was asserted that on account of collision by offending vehicle, tractor driven by deceased turned turtle and caught fire. Consequently, both the occupants of tractor sustained multiple injuries and died at the spot. DDR No.2 dated 26.03.1998 was registered in Police Station Farrukh Nagar by one Roop Chand. Accordingly, compensation was sought by the appellants-claimants. 4. Respondents No.1 and 2 apart from taking preliminary objections claimed that the accident had taken place on account of rash and negligent driving of tractor and accordingly prayed for dismissal of claim petition. Respondent No.3 also denied its liability. 5. In order to prove the manner of accident as well as rash and negligent driving on the part of vehicle driven by respondent No.1, appellants-claimants had examined Banne Singh as PW3, claiming him to be an eye-witness of the occurrence. It is worth noticing that Roop Chand who had lodged the DDR was not examined by the appellants-claimants. 6. After appreciating evidence of PW-3, learned Tribunal had SUNIL CHANDER 2026.07.09 10:15 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-3404-2001 (O&M) -3- concluded that evidence of PW-3 as regards to manner of accident is not reliable as he was not an eye-witness and had arrived at the place of occurrence only after the occurrence had taken place. Accordingly, learned Tribunal had rejected the manner of accident as was being pleaded by appellants-claimants and decided issue No.1 against the appellants- claimants. 7. On re-appreciation of evidence of PW-3 as well as contents of DDR No.2 dated 26.03.1998, it transpires that even Roop Chand while lodging the DDR had clearly admitted that it was only after receipt of information regarding accident he along with other villagers had reached at the spot, where he had found that the tractor was in turtle position and had caught fire. The contents of DDR goes to show that even the author of DDR was not present at the time of occurrence. In fact, he has not even talked about involvement of offending vehicle in the accident or manner of accident while lodging DDR. Furthermore, in present case, PW-3 in cross- examination clearly admitted that he had reached the spot after the accident. Therefore, it is clearly made out that neither Roop Chand, author of DDR nor PW-3 had witnessed the accident and therefore the manner of accident being claimed by appellants-claimants regarding rash and negligent driving of offending vehicle by respondent No.1 is not established by any cogent evidence on record. 8. Therefore, no fault with the conclusion drawn by learned Tribunal can be found as same is based upon correct appreciation of evidence of appellants-claimants and same is accordingly upheld. SUNIL CHANDER 2026.07.09 10:15 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-3404-2001 (O&M) -4- 9. Present appeal is dismissed being without any merit. However, appellants-claimants shall be free to seek compensation in present case as a case of hit and run under the provision of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 by approaching competent authority. 10. Pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of. (PARMOD GOYAL) JUDGE 06.07.2026 Sunil Chander Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No SUNIL CHANDER 2026.07.09 10:15 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document