FAO-6688-2012(O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 247 FAO-6688-2012(O&M) Date of decision: 19.05.2026 Smt. Babita Gupta & ors. ….Appellants Versus Ramesh Kumar & anr. ....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA Present:- Mr. Vinod Gupta, Advocate for the appellants. Mr. Vipul Sharma, Advocate for Mr. Paul S. Saini Advocate For respondent No.2. NIDHI GUPTA, J. 1. The present appeal has been filed by the claimants laying challenge to the Award dated 05.09.2012 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jind (for short “the learned Tribunal”) whereby MACT Case No.41 dated 25.07.2012 filed by the claimants/appellants under Sec3on 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereina6er referred to as ‘the Act’), has been dismissed. 5 claimants are the 45-year-old widow, 23-year-old son, 21-year- old son, 19-year-old daughter, and 68-year-old mother of deceased Sanjeev Gupta. 2. It was the pleaded case of the appellants before the learned Tribunal that the deceased, Sanjeev Kumar Gupta, had died due to injuries suffered by him in a motor vehicle accident that had taken place on 08.02.2011 at about 11.00 PM due to the rash and negligent driving of canter bearing registra3on No.HR-68-9999 (hereina6er referred to as “the offending vehicle”) being owned and driven by respondent No.1, and insured by MONIKA VERMA 2026.05.22 15:48 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment chandigarh FAO-6688-2012(O&M) 2 respondent No.2. However, the learned Tribunal upon appraisal of the pleadings and the evidence adduced by the par3es had concluded that the claimants had failed to prove the involvement of the offending vehicle in the accident dated 08.02.2011, holding the same to be a hit and run case. The Tribunal had further concluded that there appears to be collusion between the claimants’ family and respondent No.1. Consequently, the claim pe33on came to be dismissed. 3. It is inter alia submiBed by learned counsel for the appellants that learned Tribunal was in error in dismissing the claim pe33on as the Tribunal failed to appreciate that FIR No.24, dated 09.02.2011, under Sec3ons 279, 304A IPC had been registered against respondent No.1 at Police Sta3on Chandi Mandir, for which he is facing trial, which prima facie proves that the vehicle in ques3on was involved in the accident and that respondent No.1 was negligent in driving the said vehicle. However, learned Tribunal had tried the claim pe33on as a criminal trial and not as a proceeding under the beneficial provisions of the Act. The Tribunal had dismissed the claim pe33on on the ground that there is no link evidence, and no proper inves3ga3on was done by the police officers. Learned Tribunal failed to appreciate that in a proceeding under the Act, a summary trial is to be conducted wherein and not like a criminal case, wherein the Tribunal is to prima facie see whether the vehicle in ques3on was involved in the accident. 4. Moreover, involvement of the vehicle and the accident stood duly proved from the evidence of eyewitness PW-5 Jag Bhushan, who is also the author of the FIR No.24 dated 09.02.2011. Learned counsel refers to the deposi3on of PW-5 eyewitness to submit Jag Bhushan has categorically stated MONIKA VERMA 2026.05.22 15:48 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment chandigarh FAO-6688-2012(O&M) 3 that the respondent No.1 was driving the offending vehicle at a fast speed without blowing any horn in a rash and negligent manner, and had hit the offending canter against the deceased Sanjiv Kumar Gupta, due to which Sanjiv Kumar Gupta fell down and sustained mul3ple grievous injuries, which led to his death. It is contented that therefore involvement, as well as rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by respondent No.1 stood duly proved from the evidence of eyewitness PW-5. 5. Moreover, learned Tribunal has also ignored evidence of PW-8 Rajiv Gupta, who has categorically stated that the accident took place with the canter. PW-8 has also deposed that respondent No.1 was not previously known to him; and has further stated that when no ac3on was taken by the police on the FIR then he had moved an applica3on to the Superintendent of Police concerned for inves3ga3on, along with number of the offending vehicle, but name of the driver was not given in the applica3on. It is submiBed that a6er the submission of the applica3on by PW-8, inves3ga3on was done by the police, and respondent No.1 was summoned a6er due verifica3on; wherea6er respondent No.1 was produced in Court and he is facing trial. It is contended that therefore there was no ground whatsoever to dismiss the claim pe33on. Appellants have even examined the inves3ga3ng officer, Inspector Maya Ram as PW-7, who has stated that inves3ga3on was done by him and prima facie respondent No.1 was found to be involved in the accident. PW-7 has also stated that later on respondent No.1 had confessed his guilt in causing the accident. It is submiBed that therefore there was no ground whatsoever for the learned Tribunal, to have dismissed the claim pe33on of the appellants. It is accordingly prayed that the present appeal be MONIKA VERMA 2026.05.22 15:48 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment chandigarh FAO-6688-2012(O&M) 4 allowed, the impugned Award be set aside and compensa3on be awarded to the claimants. 6. Per contra, ld. counsel for respondent No.2 vehemently opposes submissions advanced on behalf of the appellants and submits that collusion between the appellants and respondent No.1 is writ large on the record of the case. It is contended that the alleged offending vehicle has been falsely planted by the appellants in connivance with respondent No.1 only with a view to get compensa3on. It is accordingly prayed that the present appeal be dismissed, being without merit. 7. No other argument is raised on behalf of the par3es. I have heard learned counsel for the par3es and perused the case file in detail. I find no merit in the submissions made on behalf of the appellants. 8. The case of the appellants as pleaded in the claim pe33on and as recorded by the Tribunal in para 2 of the impugned Award, is as follows: - “2. The case set up by the peoners is that on 08.02.2011 Sanjeev Kumar Gupta, since deceased, and his cousin Jag Bhushan had gone to a$end the marriage ceremony of daughter of their friend Raj Kumar, which was to be held in Ramgarh Fort in the area of Ramgarh/Panchkula. At about 11.00 pm Sanjeev Kumar Gupta, since deceased, was crossing the road to take his arcles lying in his car, in front of Ramgarh Fort situated at Barwala Panchkula road, in the meanme the offending canter driven by respondent no.1 at fast speed, rashly and negligently and in zig-zag manner without blowing any horn came from Panchkula side and the offending vehicle hit against Sanjeev Kumar Gupta due to which Sanjeev Kumar Gupta fell down and received mulple grievous MONIKA VERMA 2026.05.22 15:48 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment chandigarh FAO-6688-2012(O&M) 5 injuries. He was shi1ed to General Hospital, Sector 6, Panchkula, where the doctor declared him dead. Peoners pleaded that respondent. no.1 caused this accident by driving his offending canter rashly and negligently. A case FIR no.24 dated 09.02.2011 under Secons 279, 304-A IPC was registered with Police Staon, Chandi Mandir, District Panchkula against respondent no.1 who is facing trial. Ajay @ Monu and Jag Bhushan had witnessed the accident. During invesgaon respondent no.1 also confessed his guilt. It is further pleaded that registraon number of the offending vehicle and name of driver could not be recorded in the FIR as Jag Bhushan complainant, who is author of FIR became perplexed and tense a1er witnesses disclosed the number of the canter and name of the driver during invesgaon. Peoners claimed compensaon to the tune of Rs.50 lacs alongwith interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of accident ll realizaon of the amount from respondents jointly and severally on account of death of Sanjeev Kumar Gupta, who was husband of peoner no.1, father of peoners no.2 to 4 and son of peoner no.5, in this accident.” (Emphasis added) 9. As noted above, FIR was registered on the basis of statement made by eyewitness Jag Bhushan PW5. However, FIR was registered against unknown vehicle and unknown person ostensibly due to the perplexity of Jag Bhushan. Appellants had produced alleged eyewitness Jag Bhushan as PW-5, who had deposed that: “...On 08.02.2011 at about 11.00 Pm Sanjeev Kumar Gupta was crossing the road to take his arcles from the car standing on the other side of the road, in the meanme a canter driven rashly and negligently and in fast speed without blowing any horn came MONIKA VERMA 2026.05.22 15:48 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment chandigarh FAO-6688-2012(O&M) 6 from Panchkula side and hit the canter against Sanjeev Kumar Gupta due to which Sanjeev Kumar Gupta fell down and sustained mulple grievous injuries. He was taken to General Hospital, Sector 6 Panchkula where he was declared dead. He stated that the accident took place on account of rash and negligent driving of canter driven by its driver. In his cross examinaon, he stated that the deceased was his cousin. It was foggy winter night and visibility was zero. He did not remember if the canter was closed body or open body canter. He did not visit the police staon a1er 09.02.2011.” (Emphasis added) 10. Appellants had also examined brother of the deceased Rajiv Gupta as PW-8, who had deposed that: “...on 22.04.2011 he joined the invesgaon of this case conducted by Maya Ram SI, Police Staon, Chandi Mandir when one Ajay @ Monu was also present. One Nin Kumar produced respondent no.1 Ramesh who was arrested. Offending canter, copy of RC and photocopy of driving licence of Ramesh Kumar and form No.38 were taken into police possession. Respondent no.1 suffered disclosure statement confessing his guilt that he had caused the accident. In his cross examinaon he stated that Maya Chand SI met him at 11.00 a.m. Nin or Ramesh Kumar were not known to him earlier. He came to know registraon number of the Canter only on 16.04.2011 from canter union. He did not move any applicaon in police post rather move applicaon to S.P. wherein he had not menoned the name of the driver of the offending canter and only number of the offending vehicle was given. He le1 the place of invesgaon on 22.04.2011 at 12:00 noon. He was not possessing the copy of applicaon moved by him to the S.P. PW7 Maya Ram rered Inspector conducted invesgaon of the criminal case lodged regarding this accident. He tesfied that invesgaon of this case was assigned to him MONIKA VERMA 2026.05.22 15:48 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment chandigarh FAO-6688-2012(O&M) 7 while he was posted in Police Post, Ramgarh. On 22.04.2011 he alongwith other police officials, Ajay @ Monu and Rajiv Gupta was present for invesgaon of this case where Nin Produced accused Ramesh (respondent no.1) alongwith Canter Swaraj Mazda bearing registraon No.HR-68-9999. He arrested accused/respondent No.1. Documents were taken into possession vide recovery memo Ex.P-13. On interrogaon the accused Ramesh suffered disclosure statement confessing his guilt of causing this accident that he could not control the vehicle due to fast speed. His disclosure statement was placed on record as Ex.P14. Ramesh Kumar demarcated the place of accident vide memo Ex. P15.” (Emphasis added) 11. Thus, from the above facts and evidence, it is clear that eyewitness Jag Bhushan PW5 was unable to note the number of the offending vehicle or iden3ty of the Driver either due to perplexity, or due to foggy night. Two months later, brother of the deceased Rajiv Gupta/PW8 had joined inves3ga3on and had produced by Ni3n Kumar, who in turn had produced respondent no.1/Driver of the offending vehicle. Ostensibly Rajiv Gupta had got number of the offending vehicle from a member of the Canter union. However, on a direct Court query, learned counsel for the appellants has admiBed that no member of the Canter union was examined by the Claimants to prove their said asser3on. 12. In the face of the above, observa3ons of the learned Tribunal while dismissing the claim pe33on are contained in paras 15 and 16 of the impugned Award, which read as follows: - “15. It is undisputed that Sanjeev Kumar Gupta met with an accident on the night of 08.02.2011 at about 11.00 pm. The only eye witness to the accident is Jag Bhushan PW5, who MONIKA VERMA 2026.05.22 15:48 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment chandigarh FAO-6688-2012(O&M) 8 is author of the FIR registered on 09.02.2011, Ex. P11, with police staon, Chandi Mandir. The contents of the FIR Ex. P11 reveal that Jag Bhushan stated therein that accident was caused by an unknown canter, driven by unknown person rashly and negligently. In deposion before this Tribunal he has again reiterated version of his earlier statement made to the police, by means of affidavit Ex. PW5/A that the accident was caused by the canter driven by its driver rashly and negligently in and he has lodged FIR regarding fast speed and he has lodged FIR regarding the accident. A1er 09.02.2011, i.e. the date registraon of the case, police did not record statement of any other eye witness. PW5 Jag Bhushan stated that it was foggy winter night with zero visibility. If version of Jag Bhushan is admi$ed to be true then it was a case of hit and run without knowing the identy to be true then it was a case of hit and run without knowing the identy of the canter and its driver. Jag Bhushan PW5 was even unable to tell if the canter was closed body or open body canter. Hence, deposion of PW5 Jag Bhushan would not prove the case of the peoners regarding involvement of the offending canter. 16. The case of the peoners is based upon the fact that respondent no.1 was challaned by the police and he is facing trial. He also suffered disclosure statement and idenfied the spot. The stand taken by respondent no.2 is that there is no invesgaon and offending canter has been falsely involved deliberately. It is se$led proposion of law that involvement of the vehicle in criminal case and the fact that its driver had been challaned can be taken into consideraon as driver was found as torIeasor. However, it is also se$led that non registraon of FIR or even finding of convicon in criminal case of the driver challaned by the MONIKA VERMA 2026.05.22 15:48 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment chandigarh FAO-6688-2012(O&M) 9 police would not decide the queson of negligence in motor accident claim cases one way or other i.e. in absence of FIR conclusion of no liable can not be drawn, and in case of convicon by criminal court fastening of liability without any evidence before the Tribunal. In the present case case respondent no.1 has been challaned for causing this accident a1er 74 days of the accident. From the evidence adduced it is manifest that there was not an iota of evidence with the police regarding involvement of the offending canter and its driver by any material before it before 22.04.2011. Complaint Ex. PA was moved by PW8 Rajiv Gupta to the police on 12.04.2011 that he had searched of his own about the offending canter and he become aware that it was canter no.HR-68/9999 make Swaraj Mazda (offending canter) The contents of complaint Ex. PA moved by PW8 Rajiv Kumar Gupta, brother of the deceased, would not lead to an inference that respondent no.1 was rash and negligent while driving the offender canter or that offending canter was involved in this accident as PW8 Rajiv Gupta has no authority to invesgate the criminal case. Moreover, he has not menoned any source in his complaint Ex. PA as to how he concluded that canter involved in the accident was HR- 68/0000. There is absence of name of respondent no.1 and to involve vehicle only. Invesgaon conducted by Pw7 Maya Ram SI is also without any evidence against respondent no.1. The evidence adduced by the peoners and deposion of PW7 Maya Ram would indicate that he started invesgaon of this case on 22.04.2011. During his invesgaon he did not invesgate about the invesgaon relaonship of Ramesh Kumar with the deceased or with Rajiv Kumar Gupta or with Jag Bhushan, Ajay @ Monu etc. Rajiv Kumar PW8 stated that Maya Ram SI met him at T MONIKA VERMA 2026.05.22 15:48 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment chandigarh FAO-6688-2012(O&M) 10 point of Sectors 27-28 at about 11.00 am. PW7 Maya Ram Si stated that respondent no.1 was produced before him at 11.30 am by Nin Kumar and he had completed the invesgaon from 11.30 am to 2.30 pm; and produced the accused/respondent no.1 in the court on the same day indicates that a complaint, sequence of events Ex. PA, is moved by brother of the deceased without naming the driver on 12.04.2011 regarding which the invesgaon is conducted by Maya Ram SI who leaves police post on 22.04.2011 and is present at T point of Sectors 27-28. Rajiv Kumar Gupta and Ajay @ Monu meet him at 11.00 am; accused/respondent no.1 alongwith offending Canter and other documents appears there of his own at 11.30 am, confesses about his involvement in the present accident and then idenfies the place of accident, already known to the police and all the documents are prepared and therea1er accused/respondent no.1 is produced in the court on the same day without any further invesgaon would clearly indicate that it is a case of no invesgaon. All the things happened collecvely on 22.04.2011 in the presence of brother of the deceased and invesgaon was concluded on the same day. As already observed, eyewitness has not supported the case of the peoners regarding involvement of the offending canter. Moreover, respondent no.1 did not appear in the witness box. His summons were obtained by respondent no.2 to examine him as a witness in this case but he did not appear in the witness box, which would also indicate that he intended to support the case of the peoners. Evidence adduced is indicave of collusion and peoners have not been able to prove involvement of offending canter. Rao of cases law relied upon by learned counsel for the peoners would not be applicable to the present case as facts are enrely MONIKA VERMA 2026.05.22 15:48 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment chandigarh FAO-6688-2012(O&M) 11 disnguishable. It is not a case where FIR is delayed but it is a case which of hit and run wherein offending canter a been involved later on without any evidence collected by the police on the invesgaon of 3 hours. There appears collusion between the peoners' family and respondent no.1. Accordingly issue no.1 is decided against peoners and issue no.3-A is decided in favour of respondent no.2.” (Emphasis added) 13. Thus, case of the appellant is riddled with contradic3ons and loopholes. The above said findings, observa3ons and conclusions of the learned Tribunal are on the face of it correct as despite several Court queries, learned counsel for the appellants is unable to inform as to how appellants discovered the number of the offending vehicle and verified the iden3ty of respondent No.1. As noted above, it has been sought to be contended that the said details were disclosed to Rajiv Gupta, PW-8 brother of the deceased by a member of the canter union. However, admiBedly no member of the canter union has been examined by the appellants to verify their said submission. These factors clearly indicate that respondent no.1 was brought on the scene by the Claimants to get the compensa3on. This is for3fied from the fact that respondent no.1 has outrightly admiBed his guilt in causing the accident. Thus, the collusion between the appellants and respondent No.1 is writ large. Keeping in view the en3rety of the above facts, it is clear case of hit and run, in which respondent No.1 has been involved by the appellants only with a view to procure the compensa3on. 14. The said fact is also established from the fact that in the FIR No.24, dated 09.02.2011, respondent No.1 has been acquiBed by ld. Addi3onal Chief Judicial Magistrate, Panchkula, vide judgment dated MONIKA VERMA 2026.05.22 15:48 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment chandigarh FAO-6688-2012(O&M) 12 11.06.2013 on account of the fact that all the prosecu3on witnesses including Jag Bhushan have turned hos3le. In the criminal trial, Inves3ga3ng Officer Sub Inspector Maya Chand (re3red), had appeared as PW-7. Relevant findings of the ld. Addi3onal Chief Judicial Magistrate in judgment dated 11.06.2013, read as follows: - “24. PW1 is the part invesgang officer, who only got recorded the FIR a1er recording the statement of the complainant; conducted the inquest proceedings and prepared the site plan of the spot. His tesmony has, therefore, nothing to connect the accused with the offences in queson. PW-2 the complainant Jag Bhushan and PW-3 the another witness who had reached at the spot and had removed the injured-deceased to the hospital, have been examined by the prosecuon as material witnesses but even these witnesses have failed to substanate the allegaons. Both these witnesses have candidly admi$ed in their respecve cross-examinaon that neither they had any knowledge about the make, number or colour of the vehicle which had caused accident in queson, nor, they had seen the driver of the said vehicle as it was night me and the driver had fled away from the spot alongwith his vehicle. This admission on the part of the material witnesses of the prosecuon case, is sufficient to discard the prosecuon version. Further, both, PW2 and PW3, have categorically stated that they had seen the accused in the court for the first me and on this score only, the accused is liable to be acqui$ed as it is well se$led principle of law that the idenficaon of the accused in the court for the first me is valueless and is no idenficaon in the eyes of law. MONIKA VERMA 2026.05.22 15:48 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment chandigarh FAO-6688-2012(O&M) 13 25. Now coming to the tesmony of PW7. He is the star witness of the prosecuon case as he had conducted the invesgaons and arrested the accused. Admi$edly, when the FIR was lodged, it was against an unknown person and unknown vehicle. When the invesgaons of the case were handed over to PW7 for further invesgaons, neither the accused present in the court nor the number of the offending vehicle had come into picture. As per the version of the prosecuon itself, it was only on 11.4.2011, when the PW7 had recorded the statement of the alleged eye- witness Ajay @ Monu and only then the number of the Canter in queson had seen the light of the day. As such, the tesmony of the said eye-witness Ajay @ Monu was the most important piece of evidence for the purpose of prosecuon case but the prosecuon has failed to examine the said eye-witness Ajay @ Monu despite availing numerous opportunies for evidence. 26. The prosecuon has even failed to examine Rajiv Gupta, the author of complaint, Ex.PW7/A, wherein the number of the offending vehicle had been menoned. It was menoned in Ex.PW7/A that he (Rajiv Gupta), brother of the deceased, had come to know from some sources that the number of the canter, which had caused the accident in queson, was HR68-9999. But there is no menon about the said sources. By examining the said Rajiv Gupta, the prosecuon could have brought these unanswered facts in light but non-examinaon of said Rajiv Gupta, has le1 a big queson mark on the involvement of the vehicle in queson in the accident in queson.” 15. From the above, it is clear that before the Tribunal the claimants have sought to project that the accident in ques3on had been caused due to the rash and negligent driving of the alleged offending vehicle driven by MONIKA VERMA 2026.05.22 15:48 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment chandigarh FAO-6688-2012(O&M) 14 respondent No.1; and resultantly, claimants are en3tled for compensa3on. However, before the learned Addi3onal Chief Judicial Magistrate the claimants’ side has projected an en3rely contrary posi3on in failing to iden3fy respondent No.1 and incriminate him in any manner. In such a situa3on, reference may be made to a judgment of this Court in “United India Insurance Company Limited Vs. Kamla Devi & Others” (P&H) : Law Finder Doc Id # 251230 wherein it has been held that: "5. It should sll have been possible for the Tribunal to take a decision uninfluenced by any decision that may have come before the criminal court. The several decisions which have come about on this issue are to the effect that a judgment in a criminal court is not binding on the Tribunal; the non-filing of a FIR is not material; even the fact of involvement of the vehicle as found by the criminal court is not binding. While the Tribunal is competent to assess the evidence which is brought before it and take an independent decision, then the point that has to be seen is whether there was any evidence worth its name before the Tribunal to come a finding that the parcular vehicle was involved in the accident. It can be either that the version of Sitar Mohd. cannot be relied for he has contradicted himself wholesale with the version given before the criminal court or looked for other evidence which was placed before the Court. Alternavely if any explanaon had been given by the witness as to why he deposed falsehood before the criminal court, even such an explanaon could have been accepted to enter a finding that the accident took place only involving the parcular insured's vehicle. In this case, no explanaon has been given by the witness as to why he stated before the criminal court that he did not know which vehicle was MONIKA VERMA 2026.05.22 15:48 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment chandigarh FAO-6688-2012(O&M) 15 involved in the accident. He would, on the other hand, defy that he ever made any such statement before the criminal court, necessitang the statement made before the criminal court to be exhibited for contradicon before the Tribunal. It must be remembered a statement in criminal court case by a witness is also on oath. If he was u$ering falsehood, he was liable for perjury. If there was contradicon between the version elicited before the Tribunal to the statement made before the criminal court then such a witness will be unworthy of acceptance. The Tribunal could have simply rejected the whole evidence. If it was going to pick out one line from chief examinaon to say that the insured's vehicle was involved in the accident, the Tribunal was doing something which is not a judicial funcon but a travesty of jusce."” 16. The above said view has been reiterated by this Court in “Shri Ram General Insurance Company Limited Vs. Jeeto Devi & Others” FAO- 2231-2014 decided on 03.12.2019, wherein it is held as under:- “(6) This Court cannot loose sight of the judgment rendered by this Court in the case of United India Insurance Company Limited versus Kamla Devi and others, wherein it was specifically held that in case an eye witness gives totally different version before the Court conducng trial in criminal case from the statement made by the said eye witness before the Tribunal, the tesmony of such a witness is unworthy of being accepted and the evidence should be simply rejected. In fact, the learned Single Bench came down heavily on such witness and held that the said witness is also liable for perjury.” MONIKA VERMA 2026.05.22 15:48 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment chandigarh FAO-6688-2012(O&M) 16 17. Learned counsel for the appellants is unable to controvert the aforesaid facts, findings, and legal posi3on. Thus, the impugned Award suffers from no error. Present appeal accordingly stands dismissed. 18. Pending applica3on(s) if any also stand(s) disposed of. (NIDHI GUPTA) 19.05.2026 JUDGE monika i) Whether speaking/reasoned? Yes/No ii) Whether reportable? Yes/No MONIKA VERMA 2026.05.22 15:48 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment chandigarh