IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** 104 FAO-957-1994 (O&M) Date of Decision.:29.09.2025 Adarsh Kumar (since died) through LRs …..Appellant Vs. Baldev Singh and Another .….Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA Present:- Mr. H.S. Kassan, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. R.C. Kapoor, Advocate for respondent No.2-The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. **** DEEPAK GUPTA, J. (ORAL) It is claimant’s appeal against the order dated 16.12.1993 passed by learned MACT, Karnal, rejec/ng his claim pe//on under Sec/on 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act, which was filed for seeking compensa/on on account of the injuries sustained in a motor vehicular accident. 2. According to pe//oner, on 25.07.1991 he was driving Punjab Roadways bus and had started from Pathankot to Delhi. As he reached near Karna Lake, Karnal, truck bearing registra/on No. HNC-3255 came from the opposite direc/on at fast speed and being driven in rash and negligent manner. The front right tyre of the truck burst, due to which truck driver lost the control and struck against the bus, causing injuries to the pe//oner as well as other passengers of the bus. Contending that he received serious injuries and got treatment from General Hospital, Karnal and then from PGI, Chandigarh, pe//oner sought compensa/on of ₹4,00,000/-. 3. The claim was contested by the respondent on the ground that NEETIKA TUTEJA 2025.09.30 14:48 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-957-1994 (O&M) accident took place due to own rash and negligent driving of the pe//oner, who was driving bus No. PB-12-5876 at the relevant /me. 4. Learned Tribunal a=er framing issues and taking evidence found that accident took place due to the negligence of the pe//oner and for this reason, the claim pe//on was rejected. 5. Assailing the finding, it is contended by learned counsel for the appellant that learned Tribunal failed to appreciate the evidence on record correctly. 6. Refu/ng the aforesaid conten/on, learned counsel for the respondent-The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. points out towards para No.3 of the grounds of appeal, wherein the appellant himself admi>ed that the truck driver having expired, his widow had filed a separate claim pe//on, in which the Tribunal had held the present appellant to be negligent for causing the accident. 7. Though it is pleaded in the grounds of appeal that against that award in the pe//on filed by the widow of truck driver, appeal was filed but learned counsel conceded before this Court that he is not aware of any such appeal. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent has categorically stated that no such appeal has been found to be ever filed by the appellant against the award passed in favour of the widow of the deceased truck driver. Thus, the finding of the Tribunal in another case, where compensa/on was allowed to the widow of truck driver, to the effect that it was the appellant i.e. bus driver, who was negligent in causing the accident, has a>ained finality. 8. Not only above, even if the evidence produced in this case is analyzed separately, it has been found by the Tribunal that perusal of the photograph (Ex.R-1) revealed the posi/on of bus and the truck standing at NEETIKA TUTEJA 2025.09.30 14:48 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-957-1994 (O&M) the road a=er the accident. It was found that truck was standing on its extreme le= side of the road with some of its por/on on kacha side; whereas the bus was standing on the extreme right side of the road a=er the accident. This posi/on was also shown in the site plan of the spot, which was tendered in evidence by the appellant himself. The tribunal rightly concluded that from this posi/on of the two vehicles visible in the photograph, it could be safely concluded that it is the bus, which went towards the right side of the road and then struck against the truck, coming from the opposite direc/on. 9. In the aforesaid factual posi/on, this Court does not find any ground to interfere in the findings as recorded by the learned Tribunal. No merits. Dismissed. All the miscellaneous applica/on(s), if any, stand disposed of. (DEEPAK GUPTA) JUDGE September 29, 2025 Nee/ka Tuteja Whether Speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No NEETIKA TUTEJA 2025.09.30 14:48 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document