FAO-2477-2012 (O&M) and 1 other connected appeals 110 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision : 10.02.2026 FAO-2477-2012 (O&M) Tanvir Singh ....Appellant Versus Ranjit Kaur and others ...Respondents FAO-2478-2012 (O&M) Tanvir Singh ....Appellant Versus Gurmeet Kaur and others ...Respondents FAO-2479-2012 (O&M) Tanvir Singh ....Appellant Versus Inderpreet Kaur and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ JAIN Present : Mr. Munish Raj, Advocate for the appellant (in all matters). Mr. C.L. Sharma, Advocate for respondents No.1 to 4. Mr. Lalit Garg, Advocate for respondent/Insurance Co. PANKAJ JAIN, J. (ORAL) By way of instant order, I intend to dispose off three appeals filed at the behest of the owner-cum-driver of the offending vehicle against the award passed by MACT. DEEPAK KUMAR 2026.02.12 16:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-2477-2012 (O&M) and 2 other connected appeals 2. All the three appeals arise out of same accident and thus the same are being adjudicated by common order as they involve common question of fact. 3. For brevity, facts are being culled out from FAO No.2477 of 2012, which is being treated as lead case. 4. Claimants filed application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 seeking compensation on account of death of Parvinder Singh @ Parminder Singh in a motor-vehicular accident, dated 26.12.2006. 5. The appellant is driver-cum-owner of Maruti car bearing registration No. PB-10-N-1077. The vehicle was not insured. The appellant is primarily aggrieved of findings recorded by the Tribunal on Issue No.1 which has further led to liability on him under Issues No.2 and 3. 5.1. As per the facts discernible from the records, it is an admitted case that the Maruti car driven by the appellant, jumped divider and hit the Tata Sumo car moving on the other side of the road. FIR, Exhibit P-3, was registered against the present appellant, under Section 279, 304-A, 427, 337, 338 IPC. Later on, the investigating agency filed cancellation report granting clean chit to the appellant. 6. Counsel for the appellant has referred to the explanation offered by the appellant before the Tribunal regarding a sudden U-turn taken by the Trolla which led to the accident and submits that in view of these facts the appellant ought not have been held to be rash and negligent in driving Maruti car. DEEPAK KUMAR 2026.02.12 16:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-2477-2012 (O&M) and 3 other connected appeals 6.1. Counsel however is not in position to dispute that neither any details of Trolla were ever disseminated by the appellant, nor any effort was made to implead driver/owner of the alleged Trolla which according to the appellant was the reason of motor-vehicular accident. Rather the Tribunal after analysing the evidence found that there is no evidence w.r.t. involvement of any third vehicle. Apart from bald statement made by one Dalvinder Singh, who was joined by the police authorities in investigation of the FIR, nobody testified regarding involvement of third vehicle. Dalvinder Singh when appeared before the Tribunal feigned ignorance w.r.t. the details of such Trolla. 7. In view thereof, the fact that the vehicle being driven by the appellant jumped the divider and hit the vehicle moving on the other side of the road, this Court does not find any reason to interfere in a well reasoned finding recorded by the Tribunal on Issue No.1. This Court also cannot lose sight of the fact that Maruti car was driven by the appellant at such a high speed that it jumped divider and hit Tata Sumo with such an impact that the Tata Sumo was damaged 100% and it resulted in loss of two persons travelling in Tata Sumo. 8. In view of above, this Court finds no merit in the present appeals. The same are ordered to be dismissed. 9. Pending application, if any, shall also stands disposed off. DEEPAK KUMAR 2026.02.12 16:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-2477-2012 (O&M) and 4 other connected appeals 10. A copy of this order be kept on the files of other connected cases. February 10, 2026 (Pankaj Jain) Dpr Judge Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No DEEPAK KUMAR 2026.02.12 16:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document