IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.5599 of 2004 (O&M) Reserved on : 22.07.2026 Pronounced on : 01.08.2026 RAJINDER KAUR AND OTHERS ...APPELLANTS VERSUS SAWARAN SINGH AND OTHERS ...RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PARMOD GOYAL Present: Mr. Raja Sharma, Advocate for appellants. Mr. Janmeet Kaur, Advocate for Mr. B.S. Jatana, Advocate for respondent No.1. Mr. Vinod Chaudhari, Advocate for respondent No.3-Insurance Company. *** PARMOD GOYAL, J. (ORAL) Present appeal has been filed by the appellants-claimants being the wife, children (four) and parents of Tarsem Lal (hereinafter referred to as the ‘deceased’), who died in motor vehicular accident dated 23.12.2001 caused due to rash and negligent driving by respondent-driver while driving tractor bearing registration No.PB-11-P- 4735 (hereinafter referred to as ‘offending vehicle’), being aggrieved by the dismissal of claim petition filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as ‘1988 Act’) vide award dated 29.07.2004, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Patiala (hereinafter referred to as ‘Tribunal’) solely on the ground that respondents have failed to prove involvement of offending vehicle in accident dated 23.12.2001. SUNIL CHANDER 2026.08.01 15:06 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO No.5599 of 2004 (O&M) -2- 2. Brief facts relevant to the present lis are that on 23.12.2001 the deceased after collecting milk from the village was going from Village Kalyan to Patiala side on his motorcycle bearing registration No.PB-44-A-2679 on the left side of the road. At about 6:30 PM when he reached in the area of village Kalyan, in the meantime, offending vehicle being driven in a rash and negligent manner came from behind and while overtaking the motorcycle of the deceased, respondent-driver by going on the extreme left side put a sudden turn and hit the motorcycle of the deceased. As a result of which deceased fell on the road and suffered grievous injuries. He was immediately taken to Rajindra Hospital, Patiala, where he was declared brought dead. 3. In order to prove rash and negligent driving by the respondent-driver, the appellants/claimants relied on the evidence of PW1 Rajinder Kaur, PW2 Prem Singh and PW3 Pawan Kumar. They also relied upon the FIR No.1123 dated 23.12.2001 under Sections 279 and 304-A of Indian Penal Code, 1860 registered at police station, Sadar Patiala. 4. Initially, appellants-claimants had sought compensation under Section 166 of 1988 Act, however during pendency of claim petition, they had duly preferred an application for converting same under Section 163A of 1988 Act. 5. Learned Tribunal by concluding that appellants-claimants have failed to prove involvement of offending vehicle dismissed the claim petition under Section 166 of 1988 Act and also dismissed application for converting claim petition under Section of 163A of 1988 SUNIL CHANDER 2026.08.01 15:06 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO No.5599 of 2004 (O&M) -3- Act on the ground that for filing application under Section 163A of 1988 Act, the income of deceased had to be Rs.40,000/- per annum or less than Rs.40,000/-, and since the appellants-claimants had claimed income of deceased to be Rs.10,000/- per month i.e. Rs.1,20,000/- per annum, therefore, even application under Section 163A of 1988 Act is also not maintainable. 6. Learned counsel for appellants-claimants has argued that learned Tribunal has erred as accident stands proved by PW2, therefore, learned Tribunal if not under Section 166 of 1988 Act ought to have granted compensation under Section 163A of 1988 Act. 7. However, argument raised on behalf of learned counsel for appellants-claimants is without any merit. Whether claim petition is under Section 166 of 1988 Act or under Section 163A of 1988 Act, it is incumbent upon claimants to first prove that accident had resulted on account of use of motor vehicle which allegedly have caused the accident. Once involvement of offending vehicle and respondent-driver is proved on record, thereafter, it is to be seen whether respondent-driver was negligent or the compensation is payable under no fault liability. However, in both the circumstances the basic ingredient is to prove involvement of offending vehicle in the accident. Unless involvement of offending vehicle is proved, no compensation either for fault liability or under no fault liability can be awarded in favour of appellants-claimants. 8. In present case, learned Tribunal had rightly appreciated the testimony of PW2 as well as contents of FIR. It is pertinent to note that neither in the testimony of PW2 nor in FIR, registration number of SUNIL CHANDER 2026.08.01 15:06 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO No.5599 of 2004 (O&M) -4- offending vehicle was disclosed/mentioned. Appellants-claimants have failed to explain that when the FIR was lodged against an unknown vehicle then under what circumstances registration number of offending vehicle came to their knowledge. There is neither any explanation nor any pleading in this regard. There is total silence on the part of appellants-claimants. In FIR, number of offending vehicle as well as name of respondent-driver was not mentioned and the only description was that of a tractor. Similarly, PW2 while appearing before the Court again stated that accident was caused by a tractor without disclosing number or driver of same. From perusal of FIR as well as testimony of PW2, it cannot be concluded that it was tractor bearing registration No.PB-11-P-4735 which had caused the accident resulting into the death of the deceased. There is no pleading or evidence as to how the registration number of tractor and name of respondent-driver came to the notice of appellants-claimants or police. The investigating officer was not examined in present case to disclose in what manner, tractor/offending vehicle was found to be involved in accident. In absence of any material showing offending vehicle had caused the accident, the finding of learned Tribunal cannot be faulted with. 9. The onus to prove involvement of offending vehicle was upon appellants-claimants which they had failed to prove even on standard of proof i.e. pre-ponderance of probabilities. Accordingly, no compensation either under Section 166 of 1988 Act or under Section 163A of 1988 Act can be awarded in favour of appellants-claimants. 10. Present is a case of hit and run, therefore, appellants- SUNIL CHANDER 2026.08.01 15:06 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO No.5599 of 2004 (O&M) -5- claimants shall be entitled to compensation available as per 1988 Act in hit and run case by approaching competent authority. The competent authority shall decide the case after duly considering the fact that appellants-claimants have been pursuing their claim petition before the learned Tribunal as well as appeal before this Court. 11. In view of above discussion, present appeal is dismissed with liberty to seek compensation as a case of hit and run. 12. Pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of. (PARMOD GOYAL) JUDGE 01.08.2026 Sunil Chander Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No SUNIL CHANDER 2026.08.01 15:06 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document