IN THE HI 210 Smt. Manjeet Sher Singh Ch CORAM: Present:- NIDHI GUPTA, the dismissal Tribunal, Chan vide Award da filed by the cl Vehicles Act, claimants are Singh who is s place on 07.08 car bearing re alleged offend owner of the a E HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HA jeet Kaur & Others Vs. Chauhan& Others HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE NID Mr.Jagdish Manchanda, Ad for the appellants. Mr.Manoj Pundir, Advocate Mr. Sonu Singh, Advocate for respondent No.3. *** PTA, J. Present appeal has been issal of their claim petition by t Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to d dated 07.12.2000 passed in MAC e claimants/appellants herein unde Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred t are the widow, two daughters an is stated to have died in a motor 7.08.1995 due to the alleged rash g registration No.HR-07-1818 (her fending vehicle”) by respondent N the alleged offending vehicle. D HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO-2364-2001 (O&M) Date of decision: 27.01.2025 ...Appellant(s) ...Respondent(s) NIDHI GUPTA Advocate cate ate en filed by the claimants against by the Motor Accident Claims d to as “the learned Tribunal”) MACT Case No.39 of 29.02.1996 under Section 166 of the Motor d to as “the Act”). The four rs and son of deceased-Gurbax tor vehicular accident that took ash and negligent driving of the (hereinafter referred to as “the t No.3. Respondent no.1 is the 5 SUNENA 2025.01.31 10:16 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 2. that the claim admittedly the the motor ve submitted tha succumbed to was also regi alleged offen accordingly pr place. Thus, dismissed. 3. appellants. 4. perused the ca 5. are that on with Joginder when they rea 07/1818/the a in rash and n motorcycle. A Learned counsel for the a laim petition of the appellants has y the deceased had died due to the r vehicular accident that took p that the deceased was taken d to the injuries on 27.08.1995. Im registered against respondent No. ffending vehicle on 28.08.1995. proven on record that the accid , the claim petition of the ap No other argument is I have heard learned cou e case file in great detail. Brief facts of the case as s n 07.08.1995 at about 2:30 pm G der Singh and Narinder Singh wa y reached near village Pansara, car he alleged offending vehicle, being d negligent manner came from be . As a result all of them fell down he appellants inter alia submits has been wrongly dismissed as o the injuries suffered by him in ok place on 07.08.1995. It is en to the hospital where he . Immediately thereafter, an FIR No.1/owner and driver of the . It is submitted that it is cident in question had taken appellants has been wrongly is raised on behalf of the counsel for the appellants and as set out in the claim petition m Gurbax Singh-deceased along was going on motorcycle and , car bearing registration No.HR- eing driven by respondent No.3 behind and struck against the own and sustained injuries and 5 SUNENA 2025.01.31 10:16 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document from there Gu injuries on 27. 6. and responde that no accide fell down from 07.08.1995 ne driven by resp were going to car, police ask them to Yamu But later on 28.08.1995.H cancellation re 7. deposed that Narinder Sing (PW2) was dri pillion. Then (deceased) an was driving th offending car and as a result e Gurbax Singh was referred to PGI 27.08.1995. The claim petition was co ndent No.3 through written statem cident had taken place with the ca from the motorcycle himself due to 5 near Yamuna bridge. One Head respondent No.3 in which responde g to Yamuna Nagar from Saharanp asked them to take the injured to h amuna Nagar and got them admitte on false FIR was registered ag .However, on investigation the sai n report (Ex.R1). The claimants examined hat deceased was his uncle and o ingh were going on his motorcycl s driving the motorcycle and Narin hen he corrected himself and ) and Narinder Singh was sitting be g the motorcycle on the correct side car came from behind and struck i esult all three of them fell down. The PGI where he succumbed to his s contested by respondent No.1 tement and took legal objection car in question. The deceased e to skidding as it was raining on ead Constable stopped the car ndent No.1 was sitting and they ranpur. When they stopped the to hospital so respondents took itted in the hospital at Jagadhri. against respondent No.3 on said FIR was cancelled through ined Jagdev Singh PW2 who d on 07.08.1995 he along with rcycle. He also deposed that he arinder Singh was sitting on the nd deposed that he, Gurbax g behind him and Gurbax Singh side at slow speed when alleged ck into motorcycle from behind . The said car was driven rashly. 5 SUNENA 2025.01.31 10:16 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 8. 07.08.1995 he 2:30 pm they injured to hosp 9. and document found that PW named in the not present at The presence Constable wh Yamuna Naga later on after d cancelled thro after recordin recorded duri spells out tha gone to Yamu motorcycle an road was slip Singh suffered 07.08.1995 an Ashok Kumar w In his deposition respon 5 he was driving the car in question they met two police officials on w hospital and false case was registere On the basis of the above entary evidence produced by the PW2 Jagdev Singh who has be the petition meaning thereby he is nt at the scene of accident as per v nce of Joginder Singh was admitted who has deposed that case was agar against respondent No.3 Raj fter due inquiry the case registered a through Cancellation Report (Ex.R rding statement of Joginder Singh during course of investigation of c that on 07.08.1995 he along with amuna Nagar and when they wer e and Gurbax Singh was pillion rid slippery and motorcycle slipped a ered injuries and later on died in PG 5 and case was registered on 28 ar was also received and his statem pondent No.2 stated that on tion and it was raining. At about n whose request they took the stered against them. ove said pleadings, and the oral the parties, the learned Tribunal been examined has not been e is a procured witness. He was er version contained in petition. tted by RW Pardeep Kumar Head was registered at Police Station Raj Kumar on 28.08.1995 and red against respondent No.3 was Ex.R1). The case was cancelled ingh. The perusal of statement of criminal case (Ex.R2) clearly ith deceased-Gurbax Singh had were returning he was driving rider. Due to rainy season the ed as a result of which Gurbax PGI. The accident took place on 28.08.1995. The statement of atement Ex.R3 clearly states that 5 SUNENA 2025.01.31 10:16 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document car in question claimants hav names have b further held t presence at t claimant in th failed to prove driving of resp 10. or deny the explanation fo 11. 12. 27.01.2025 Sunena Whether spea Whether repo stion was stopped for removing the have not examined Joginder Singh ve been mentioned in Para 25 of t ld that Jagdev Singh PW2 has no at the spot is doubtful as he ha n their petition. It was accordingly rove their case that death took pla respondent No.3. Ld. Counsel for the appell the above said facts and finding n for the same. In view of the above, prese Pending application(s) if an peaking/reasoned: Yes/No eportable: Yes/No the injured to the hospital. The ingh and Narinder Singh whose of the petition. The ld. Tribunal no legs to stand and in fact his has not been named by the ngly held that the claimants had place due to rash and negligent pellants is unable to controvert dings or give any satisfactory resent appeal is dismissed. if any also stand(s) disposed of. (Nidhi Gupta) Judge 5 SUNENA 2025.01.31 10:16 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document