FAO-3076 IN THE HIG 209 Jasbir Kaur a Gurpreet Sin CORAM: H Present: - NIDHI GUP CM-10137 Limitation A accompanyin by an affida accompanyin FAO-3076 1. against the d 2016 dated 1988 (herein Claims Tribu Award dated 76-2017 (O&M) -1- HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HA FAO Date o Kaur and others Versus eet Singh and another M: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDH Mr. Nimanyu Gautam, Advocat I GUPTA, J. 0137-CII-2017 Prayer in this application fil tion Act, 1963 is for condonation of panying appeal. Heard. For the reasons stated in the ap affidavit, the same is allowed; and d panying appeal is condoned. 3076-2017 Present appeal has been filed t the dismissal of their claim petition ated 30.01.2016filed under Section 16 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’), s Tribunal, Ambala (for short-‘the lear dated 17.11.2016. The 04 claimants a D HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO-3076-2017 (O&M) Date of Decision:27.02.2026 .…Appellants ....Respondents NIDHI GUPTA dvocate for the appellants. on filed under Section 5 of the on of delay of 20 days in filing the the application which is supported and delay of 20 days in filing the n filed by the appellant-claimants tition bearing MACP Case No. 09 of tion 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, ct’), by the learned Motor Accident he learned Tribunal) vide impugned ants are the: i) 36-year-old widow; the the rted the ants 9 of Act, dent ned ow; RISHU KATARIA 2026.03.05 10:33 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. FAO-3076 ii) 02 minor Singh who w took place o registration N Car’) being respondent N 2. and 3 of the 76-2017 (O&M) -2- minor children; and iii) 75-year-old mo who was 41 years old who died in a lace on 29.10.2015 due to rash and n ation No. HR-01-Y-4792 (hereinafter being owned and driven by respon dent No. 2-Insurance Company. Pleaded case of the claimants the impugned Award, reads as follo “2. According to petitioners, coming to Shahabad (M) from car bearing No. HR-01Y-4792 Dera Salimpur and was to get Stand of Shahabad (M), Distt being driven by respondent manner and at high speed witho When car reached on the se Shahabad (M), respondent no.1 to high speed. Resultantly, car on the road, due to which de serious injuries. Some passersb Singh from the car. Respondent ran away from the spot. The de hospital, Kurukshetra but could injuries sustained in the acc conducted in the said hospita witness Mukesh Kumar, DDR E was recorded at Police Station 3. Further case of the claim death, deceased was a young p was driver by profession in De with Ajmer Singh on his car an driver with Shri Gurdial Singh Haryana Taxi Service, Karkard He was getting ₹12,000/- per untimely death has scattered th were dependent solely on the i minor children of deceased are have suffered great financial member in the family to earn li ₹40,000/- on the last rites of the mother of deceased-Sukhwinder d in a motor vehicular accident that and negligent driving of car baring inafter referred to as-‘the offending respondent No. 1; and insured by imants as recorded in paras No. 2 follows: - ers, on 29.10.2015, deceased was rom Delhi travelling in offending 792. He was going to his village get down from the car at the Bus Distt. Kurukshetra. The car was ent no.1 in rash and negligent without observing the traffic rules. e service lane on G.T. Road at no.1 could not control his car due car was rammed into the railing h deceased suffered multiple and ersby took out injured Sukhwinder dent no.1 and his other associates e deceased was shifted to L.N.J.P. could not survive and died due to accident. The postmortem was spital. On the statement of eye DR Entry No.41 dated 29.10.2015 tion Shahabad (M). claimants is that at the time of his ng person of 41 years of age. He n Delhi. Initially, he was working r and later on, he was working as ingh son of Shri Kaushal Singh, karduma, Shopping Centre, Delhi. per month by the said work. His d the hopes of the claimants, who the income of the deceased. Both are school going. The claimants cial loss, as there is no other rn livelihood. The claimants spent f the deceased.” nder that ring ding by o. 2 as ng ge us as nt es. at ue ng nd er .P. to as ye 15 his He as h, hi. is ho th nts er nt RISHU KATARIA 2026.03.05 10:33 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. FAO-3076 3. the learned T some techni there was n Mukesh is no 4. Award by s registered Station Shah learned Trib negligent dr appellants offending ca under Sectio dismissing th 5. appreciating evidentiary v the police ha reading of th there is negl clearly stated front portion driving in a in the railing 76-2017 (O&M) -3- Upon appraisal of pleadings an rned Tribunal had concluded that“… chnical defect in car, without fault as no rash and negligent driving. is not a reliable witness.” Learned counsel for the appe by submitting that DDR No. 41 on the basis of statement of ey n Shahbad(M). The said Mukesh Ku d Tribunal as PW-3 and has clearly t driving of the offending car by had duly proved on record the r ing car by respondent No. 1, thereb Section 166 of the Act. Therefore sing the claim petition. Further, it is argued that the lea iating the fact that the statement recor tiary value as PW-3 Mukesh Kumar lice had taken his signatures on some g of the statement Ex. R-4 and the DD is negligence on the part of the drive stated that the car hit the railing of portion of the car was broken. It is su g in a normal speed could have easily railing. Therefore, it was only due to r ngs and evidence adduced before it, “……accident was caused due to fault of the driver of the car and ing. It is further held that PW-3 e appellants assails the impugned . 41 dated 29.10.2015, had been of eye-witness Mukesh at Police sh Kumar had appeared before the learly testified about the rash and ar by respondent No. 1.Thus, the d the rash and negligent driving of thereby fulfilling the requirement erefore, there was no reason for he learned Tribunal had erred in not t recorded before the police is of no umar had categorically stated that some blank papers. Even, the bare the DDR Ex. P-3 clearly proves that driver. PW-3 Mukesh Kumar had ing of G.T. Road, due to which the It is submitted that a person who is easily averted the hitting of the car ue to rashness and negligence of the , to nd 3 ned een lice the and the g of ent for not f no that bare that had the o is car f the RISHU KATARIA 2026.03.05 10:33 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. FAO-3076 driver inasm not control accident. Le not been con 6. erred in not statement of police. The witness has statements a Thus, the le Kumar. 7. claim petitio appellants consequence compensatio compensatio vehicular acc car by respo prays for set 8. have heard l merit in the s 76-2017 (O&M) -4- inasmuch as the car was driven at su ntrol the car and the same hit the nt. Learned counsel contends that the n considered by the by learned Tribun It is also contended that the in not appreciating that in fact ther ent of Mukesh Kumar PW 3 before . The bare reading of the same wou s has explained the accident in the ents and, therefore, there is no suc the learned Tribunal had misread the It is argued that the learned T petition has erroneously observed qua in the claim petition, in fact a c uence viz-a-viz the filing of cl nsation thereof is concerned. The nsation on account of death of Su lar accident occurred due to rash and n pondent No. 1. Accordingly, learn for setting aside of the impugned Awar No other argument is raised o eard learned counsel and perused the in the submissions advanced by learned at such a high speed that he could t the railing and thus resulted into at the said aspect of the matter has Tribunal. t the learned Tribunal has further ct there is no contradiction in the efore the learned Tribunal and the e would clearly show that the said in the same manner in both the o such contradiction as observed. ad the statement of PW-3 Mukesh rned Tribunal while dismissing the ed qua the concealment made by the a compromise Ex. R-2 is of no of claim petition and claiming . The appellants have right to of Sukhwinder Singh in a motor h and negligent driving of offending , learned counsel for the appellants d Award. ised on behalf of the appellants. I the case file in detail. I find no learned counsel for appellants. ould into has rther the the said the ved. kesh the the f no ing t to otor ding I no RISHU KATARIA 2026.03.05 10:33 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. FAO-3076 9. claimants h compromise ₹8,00,000/- claimants in when confro PW-1-Jasbir the learned T as follows: 10. 11. Kaur has giv Singh. Firstl (which alleg compassiona 76-2017 (O&M) -5- First and foremost, it is to be m nts had compromised the matter w omise/settlement Ex. R-2; and ha - vide receipt Ex. R-3. This fa nts in their claim petition filed befor confronted, these documents have be Jasbir Kaur. Relevant findings in this rned Tribunal in para No. 25 of the im ows:- “25. Apart from above, it will that a compromise was reach copy of which is Ex.R2, as per w place attended by respectables satisfied that Sukhwinder Singh due to hitting of the car to the d was at fault in this regard. C signatory to this compromis document that complaint had b Singh, Hemant Narang and G no.1. Not only this, Ex.R3 i claimant Jasbir Kaur received Lakhwinder Singh and Heman received by Smt. Jasbir Kaur, on account of death of her h have been admitted by PW1 J these facts have been conceale this effect was disclosed in the p Thus, Claimants have not appro Besides the above, it is to be se has given different causes for the deat . Firstly, she had alleged that Sukhwin allegation has been ignored by ssionate view of the matter, on acco o be mentioned that admittedly, the atter with respondent No. 1 vide nd had received an amount of his fact was not disclosed by the before the ld. Tribunal. Although, ave been admitted to be correct by in this regard have been recorded by f the impugned Award, which reads will not be out of place to mention eached by claimant Jasbir Kaur, per which, a Panchayat had taken bles of the village and they were ingh had died in the car accident the divider, by chance and nobody d. Claimant Jasbir Kaur is also omise. It is mentioned in this ad been made against Lakhwinder d Gurpreet Singh i.e. respondent 3 is copy of receipt, whereby ived an amount of ₹8 lacs from emant Narang. Said amount was ur, as per her testimony as PW1, er husband. Both the documents 1 Jasbir Kaur to be correct. All ealed by claimants as nothing to the petition.” approached with clean hands. o be seen that claimant No. 1-Jasbir e death of her husband-Sukhwinder khwinder Singh had been murdered by the learned Tribunal taking n account of the fact that claimant , the vide of the ugh, t by d by eads on ur, en re nt y so is er nt by m as 1, ts All to sbir nder ered king ant RISHU KATARIA 2026.03.05 10:33 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. FAO-3076 No. 1 would husband). Si deceased had accident date car by respo examined P accident. Ot other than re claimants. 12. itself, PW- stating there Ambala was 04 persons some techni railing at G.T hit the railin broken. On t the police ha DDR, there was being d contradictory Tribunal that rash and ne weight. 76-2017 (O&M) -6- would be emotionally distraught on ac nd). Simultaneously, it has been alleg ed had died due to injuries suffered b nt dated 29.10.2015, due to rash and n respondent No. 1. To support their ned PW-3 Mukesh Kumar, stated nt. Other occupants of the offending than respondent No. 1 have inexplicab Further, perusal of the record -3 Mukesh Kumar had made a sta therein that the offending vehicle was being driven by some un-know sons. PW-3 had further stated that the technical fault in the car as a result at G.T. Road by chance in which nob railing of G.T. Road, due to which fro On the basis of statement Ex. R-4 m lice had registered DDR Ex. P-3. It i there is no mention that the car had eing driven rashly and negligently by dictory testimony of PW-3 Mukesh that at the time of accident, the offe nd negligent manner by respondent on account of sudden death of her n alleged by the claimants that the fered by him in the motor vehicular and negligent driving of offending their case, the appellants had only tated to be an eyewitness of the ending car at the time of accident xplicably not been examined by the record reveals that on 29.10.2015 statement Ex. R-4 to the police ehicle which was moving towards known person and was occupied by hat the accident had occurred due to result of which the car had hit the ch nobody was at fault. The said car ich front portion of the said car was 4 made by PW-3 Mukesh Kumar, It is to be noted that in the said r had hit the divider or that the car tly by respondent No. 1. Thus, the ukesh Kumar before the learned he offending car was being driven in ndent No. 1 would not hold any her the ular ding e dent the 015 lice ards d by e to the car was , said car , the rned n in any RISHU KATARIA 2026.03.05 10:33 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. FAO-3076 13. mentioned in made and no the said DDR contention o signatures on facts. It was claim petitio 14. that merits dismissed. 15. 27.02.2026 rishu 76-2017 (O&M) -7- Even in the claim petition, the ned in para 9 thereof that DDR Entry and no FIR was recorded. But there is id DDR was recorded on the basis of w tion of PW-3-Mukesh Kumar that ures on blank papers is an afterthough It was in the abovesaid facts and circu petition came to be dismissed. In view of the discussion abov erits interference with the impug . Pending application(s) if any als 2026 Whether speaking/reasoned Whether Reportable on, the claimants have specifically Entry No. 41 dated 29.10.2015 was ere is no averment to the effect that sis of wrong facts. Thus, subsequent that the police had obtained his thought, in view of the afore-noted d circumstances of the case that the above, I find no case is made out impugned Award. The appeal is any also stand(s) disposed of. ( NIDHI GUPTA ) JUDGE Yes/No Yes/No ally was that uent his oted t the out l is RISHU KATARIA 2026.03.05 10:33 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment.