IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** FAO-625-2003 (O&M) Date of decision: 11.03.2026 Jarnail Singh . . . . Appellant Vs. Gian Singh and others . . . . Respondents **** CORAM: HON’BLE MR JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA **** Present: - Mr.Arun Kumar Singal and Mr.K.P.S. Randhawa, Advocates, for the appellant. Mr.Shubham Gupta, Advocate, for Mr.D.P. Gupta, Advocate, for respondent No.3-Insurance Company. **** DEEPAK GUPTA, J. (ORAL) Notice to respondent No.1 has been received back with the report that he has expired; whereas respondent No.2 has remained unserved due to incomplete address. 2. However, it is rightly pointed out by learned counsel that joint and several liability of all the three respondents has been held by the Tribunal. 3. In these circumstances, there is no need to serve respondents No.1 & 2 and accordingly, service upon them is hereby dispensed with. 4. On perusal of the paper-book, it is revealed that as many as seven claim petitions arising out of same motor vehicular accident, which had taken place on 11.03.1998, were disposed of by learned MACT, Panipat vide award dated 01.05.2002. The appellant herein was one of the claimants being injured. Though negligence of the offending vehicle was established and the other claim petitions were allowed by granting compensation, but claim petition of the appellant was dismissed on the ground that he had not appeared in the witness box to support his claim. 5. Assailing the award qua the appellant, learned counsel submits VIVEK PAHWA that the medico-legal report of the appellant along with the medical bills were 2026.03.12 10:37 I agree to specified portions of this document Chandigarh FAO-625-2003 2026:PHHC:037417
already placed on record and therefore, he should have been adequately compensated. 6. There is no merit in the contention. 7. It is not disputed that appellant had not appeared in the witness box. Once it is so, neither the link between the injuries sustained by him in the motor vehicular accident nor the expense claimed to have been incurred on treatment by him in the accident, is proved on record and therefore, Tribunal was justified in declining the claim of the appellant. 8. Finding no merit in the present appeal, the same is hereby dismissed. (DEEPAK GUPTA) 11.03.2026 JUDGE 
Whether Speaking/reasoned Yes Whether reportable No VIVEK PAHWA 2026.03.12 10:37 I agree to specified portions of this document Chandigarh