IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 238 Reena & Others Subhash Chander CORAM: Present:- NIDHI GUPTA, J. challenge to the Award dated 01.02.2019 passed by Tribunal, Hisar Petition bearing MACT Case No.6 of 2018 dated 24.01.2018 filed by the appellants under Section referred to as “the Act”), has been dismissed. widow, minor son 2. are that on 04.11.2017, Sandeep was going towards his fields on his Bajaj IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Reena & Others Vs. Subhash Chander & Others HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA Mr. Manish Verma, Advocate for the appellants. Mr. Rahul Bansal, Advocate Mr. D.R. Bansal, Advocate for respondent No.3/Insurance Company. *** NIDHI GUPTA, J. Present appeal has been filed by the challenge to the Award dated 01.02.2019 passed by Hisar (hereinafter referred to as “the Tribunal”), bearing MACT Case No.6 of 2018 dated 24.01.2018 filed by the appellants under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act (herein referred to as “the Act”), has been dismissed. widow, minor son, and parents of the deceased Sandeep. Brief facts of the case as pleaded in the claim petition on 04.11.2017, Sandeep was going towards his fields on his Bajaj IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO-2710-2019(O&M) Date of decision: 30.04.2025 ...Appellant(s) ...Respondent(s) HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA , Advocate , Advocate for Mr. D.R. Bansal, Advocate for respondent No.3/Insurance Company. has been filed by the claimants laying challenge to the Award dated 01.02.2019 passed by Motor Accident Claims (hereinafter referred to as “the Tribunal”), whereby Claim bearing MACT Case No.6 of 2018 dated 24.01.2018 filed by the 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”), has been dismissed. The 4 claimants are the and parents of the deceased Sandeep. Brief facts of the case as pleaded in the claim petition on 04.11.2017, Sandeep was going towards his fields on his Bajaj 6 laying Motor Accident Claims whereby Claim bearing MACT Case No.6 of 2018 dated 24.01.2018 filed by the after The 4 claimants are the Brief facts of the case as pleaded in the claim petition on 04.11.2017, Sandeep was going towards his fields on his Bajaj SUNENA 2025.05.02 17:43 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Discover motorcycle the same. At village Gyanpura, then offending Maruti Alto Car bearing registration No. HR-20H-0252 being driven by its driver i.e. respondent No.1 at a very high speed and in a rash, negligent, careless and in a zigzag manner came there and directly struck into the motor cycle of Sandeep, due to which, Sandeep sustained serious, grievous and multiple injuries and he was taken to CHC Barwala from where he was referred to Government Hospit succumbed to the injuries after some time. A criminal case bearing FIR No.463 dated 05.11.2017 registered in Police Station Barwala, regarding this accident on the statement of Anil Kumar. 3. deceased was 33 years old at the time of accident and was earning Rs.15,000/- agriculture and dairy farming. It was further stated that the deceas died during treatment in hospital and an amount of Rs.70,000/ by the claimants on transportation and funeral and last rites. Accordingly, compensation of Rs.50 lakh was claimed. motorcycle bearing registration No. e. At about 9.30 p.m. when he reached on Jind village Gyanpura, then offending Maruti Alto Car bearing registration No. 0252 (hereinafter referred to as “the offending vehicle”) being driven by its driver i.e. respondent No.1 at a very high speed and in a gligent, careless and in a zigzag manner came there and directly struck into the motor cycle of Sandeep, due to which, Sandeep sustained serious, grievous and multiple injuries and he was taken to CHC Barwala from where he was referred to Government Hospit succumbed to the injuries after some time. A criminal case bearing FIR No.463 dated 05.11.2017 (Ex.P2) under Sections 279 and 304 registered in Police Station Barwala, regarding this accident on the statement of Anil Kumar. It was further pleaded in the claim petition that the deceased was 33 years old at the time of accident and was earning per month from Tara Cattle Feed and Rs.15,000/ agriculture and dairy farming. It was further stated that the deceas died during treatment in hospital and an amount of Rs.70,000/ by the claimants on transportation and funeral and last rites. Accordingly, compensation of Rs.50 lakh was claimed. bearing registration No.HR-80-3191 for looking after about 9.30 p.m. when he reached on Jind road in the area of village Gyanpura, then offending Maruti Alto Car bearing registration No. (hereinafter referred to as “the offending vehicle”) which was being driven by its driver i.e. respondent No.1 at a very high speed and in a gligent, careless and in a zigzag manner came there and directly struck into the motor cycle of Sandeep, due to which, Sandeep sustained serious, grievous and multiple injuries and he was taken to CHC Barwala from where he was referred to Government Hospital, Hisar where he succumbed to the injuries after some time. A criminal case bearing FIR under Sections 279 and 304-A IPC was registered in Police Station Barwala, regarding this accident on the It was further pleaded in the claim petition that the deceased was 33 years old at the time of accident and was earning per month from Tara Cattle Feed and Rs.15,000/- from agriculture and dairy farming. It was further stated that the deceased had died during treatment in hospital and an amount of Rs.70,000/- was spent by the claimants on transportation and funeral and last rites. Accordingly, 6 3191 for looking after road in the area of village Gyanpura, then offending Maruti Alto Car bearing registration No. which was being driven by its driver i.e. respondent No.1 at a very high speed and in a gligent, careless and in a zigzag manner came there and directly struck into the motor cycle of Sandeep, due to which, Sandeep sustained serious, grievous and multiple injuries and he was taken to CHC Barwala al, Hisar where he succumbed to the injuries after some time. A criminal case bearing FIR A IPC was registered in Police Station Barwala, regarding this accident on the It was further pleaded in the claim petition that the deceased was 33 years old at the time of accident and was earning from ed had was spent by the claimants on transportation and funeral and last rites. Accordingly, SUNENA 2025.05.02 17:43 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 4. claim petition of the appellants could not have been dismissed in view of the fact that as per the Post cause of death of deceased was head injuries which was sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature. All injuries are antemortem in nature and possible in an accident.” is submitted that it was well proven by the appellant before the learned Tribunal that the d the accident in question. ignored by the learned Tribunal in passing the impugned counsel contends case is required to be made out against the respondents. In the present case, it is admitted that report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. (Ex.P1) was filed against the respondents No.1 and 2 thereby proving t offending vehicle. appellants were only required to prove their case on the preponderance of the probabilities. As such, the learned Tribunal was in patent error in dismissing the Award be set aside. “Harbans Lal & Others Vs. Harvinder Pal & Others” Law Finder Doc ID # Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the claim petition of the appellants could not have been dismissed in view of the fact that as per the Post-Mortem Report dated 05.11.2017 cause of death of deceased was “shock and haemorrhage as head injuries which was sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature. All injuries are antemortem in nature and possible in an accident.” is submitted that it was well proven by the appellant before the learned Tribunal that the deceased had died due to the injuries suffered by him in the accident in question. However, these ignored by the learned Tribunal in passing the impugned contends that in a proceeding under the Act, only a prima facie case is required to be made out against the respondents. In the present case, it is admitted that report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. (Ex.P1) was filed against the respondents No.1 and 2 thereby proving t offending vehicle. Respondent No.1 was also facing trial in the FIR. The appellants were only required to prove their case on the preponderance of the probabilities. As such, the learned Tribunal was in patent error in dismissing the claim petition. It is accordingly prayed that the impugned Award be set aside. Learned counsel relies upon judgments of this Court in “Harbans Lal & Others Vs. Harvinder Pal & Others” Law Finder Doc ID # Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the claim petition of the appellants could not have been dismissed in view of Mortem Report dated 05.11.2017 (Ex.P4), the “shock and haemorrhage as a result of head injuries which was sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature. All injuries are antemortem in nature and possible in an accident.” It is submitted that it was well proven by the appellant before the learned eceased had died due to the injuries suffered by him in factsand evidence have been ignored by the learned Tribunal in passing the impugned Award. Learned that in a proceeding under the Act, only a prima facie case is required to be made out against the respondents. In the present case, it is admitted that report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. (Ex.P1) was filed against the respondents No.1 and 2 thereby proving the involvement of the Respondent No.1 was also facing trial in the FIR. The appellants were only required to prove their case on the preponderance of the probabilities. As such, the learned Tribunal was in patent error in claim petition. It is accordingly prayed that the impugned Learned counsel relies upon judgments of this Court in “Harbans Lal & Others Vs. Harvinder Pal & Others” Law Finder Doc ID # 6 Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the claim petition of the appellants could not have been dismissed in view of (Ex.P4), the a result of head injuries which was sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of t is submitted that it was well proven by the appellant before the learned eceased had died due to the injuries suffered by him in been . Learned that in a proceeding under the Act, only a prima facie case is required to be made out against the respondents. In the present case, it is admitted that report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. (Ex.P1) was filed he involvement of the Respondent No.1 was also facing trial in the FIR. The appellants were only required to prove their case on the preponderance of the probabilities. As such, the learned Tribunal was in patent error in claim petition. It is accordingly prayed that the impugned Learned counsel relies upon judgments of this Court in “Harbans Lal & Others Vs. Harvinder Pal & Others” Law Finder Doc ID # SUNENA 2025.05.02 17:43 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 726118; and Law Finder Doc ID # 826688 5. Company opposes the prayer made on behalf of the appellants and submits that the driver of the offending vehicle stands vide judgment dated 05.11.2019 passed 1st Class, Hisar the Court which is taken on record. Learned counsel accordingly prays for dismissal of the present appeal 6. 7. the case file in great detail. 8. the appellants. 9. the basis of statement of one Anil Kumar was not eyewitness to the accident in question as he had reached the spot 30-45 minutes after the accident witnessed by PW3 Kulbir; n even in the report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. in the list of witnesses and “United India Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Law Finder Doc ID # 826688. Learned counsel for respondent No.3/Insurance Company opposes the prayer made on behalf of the appellants and submits the driver of the offending vehicle stands vide judgment dated 05.11.2019 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Class, Hisar. A copy of said judgment dated 05.11.2019 is handed over in the Court which is taken on record. Learned counsel accordingly prays for dismissal of the present appeal. No other argument is made on behalf of the parties. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file in great detail. I find no merit in the submissions advanced on behalf of the appellants. FIR No.463 dated 05.11.2017 the basis of statement of one Anil Kumar PW2, who has admitted that he eyewitness to the accident in question as he had reached the spot 45 minutes after the accident. As per the appellants witnessed by one Kulbir PW3. However, inexplicably FIR was not filed by PW3 Kulbir; nor is his name mentioned in the report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. in the list of witnesses “United India Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Om Pati & Others” Learned counsel for respondent No.3/Insurance Company opposes the prayer made on behalf of the appellants and submits the driver of the offending vehicle stands acquitted in the criminal trial by the learned Judicial Magistrate, . A copy of said judgment dated 05.11.2019 is handed over in the Court which is taken on record. Learned counsel accordingly prays for No other argument is made on behalf of the parties. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused I find no merit in the submissions advanced on behalf of 05.11.2017 (Ex.P2) was registered on PW2, who has admitted that he eyewitness to the accident in question as he had reached the spot the appellants, the accident was inexplicably FIR was not filed by is his name mentioned in the FIR as an eyewitness; and report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. in the list of witnesses, name of 6 Om Pati & Others” Learned counsel for respondent No.3/Insurance Company opposes the prayer made on behalf of the appellants and submits acquitted in the criminal trial by the learned Judicial Magistrate, . A copy of said judgment dated 05.11.2019 is handed over in the Court which is taken on record. Learned counsel accordingly prays for I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused I find no merit in the submissions advanced on behalf of (Ex.P2) was registered on PW2, who has admitted that he eyewitness to the accident in question as he had reached the spot was inexplicably FIR was not filed by FIR as an eyewitness; and , name of SUNENA 2025.05.02 17:43 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Kulbir is not mentioned eyewitness to the accident in question, why first instance This can only indicate brought into the picture 10. unknown person; and details of offending vehicle were not given. The of respondent No.1 driver has been mentioned for the first time on 29.11.2017 i.e. almost 25 days after the accident. contradiction of the above version, deposed that piece of paper. vehicle and identity of the respondent No.1 not disclosed by Kulbir to the appellants whom he claimed to have known for the past 25 years. There is even no explanation as to why Kulbir did not immediately report the matter to the Police or take the injured to the hospital. his testimony that Kulbir is related to him and that Kulbir had come to his house 7 days after the alleged acciden number of the offending vehicle. registration number of the offending vehicle 5 then why was the same not conveyed to the Police till 29.11.2017. Kulbir is not mentioned. It is incomprehensible that if, Kulbir was to the accident in question, why first instancein the FIR as an eyewitness; and why This can only indicate that PW3 Kulbir was a procured witness brought into the picture only later onby Anil in the improved version Furthermore, FIR was registered by Anil against unknown person; and details of offending vehicle were not given. The of respondent No.1 driver has been mentioned for the first time on 29.11.2017 i.e. almost 25 days after the accident. contradiction of the above version, alleged eyewitness deposed that he had noted down the number of t piece of paper. If that was so, then why was the number of the offending vehicle and identity of the respondent No.1 not disclosed by Kulbir to the appellants whom he claimed to have known for the past 25 years. There is xplanation as to why Kulbir did not immediately report the matter to the Police or take the injured to the hospital. his testimony that Kulbir is related to him and that Kulbir had come to his house 7 days after the alleged accident and had disclosed the registration number of the offending vehicle. Again, it is discrepant that if Anil found the registration number of the offending vehicle 5 then why was the same not conveyed to the Police till 29.11.2017. Page 5 of 6 It is incomprehensible that if, Kulbir was to the accident in question, why did Anil not name him in the eyewitness; and why was he not examined. that PW3 Kulbir was a procured witness; as he is only later onby Anil in the improved version. FIR was registered by Anil against unknown person; and details of offending vehicle were not given. The name of respondent No.1 driver has been mentioned for the first time on 29.11.2017 i.e. almost 25 days after the accident. Even further, in alleged eyewitness PW3 Kulbir has he had noted down the number of the offending vehicle on a why was the number of the offending vehicle and identity of the respondent No.1 not disclosed by Kulbir to the appellants whom he claimed to have known for the past 25 years. There is xplanation as to why Kulbir did not immediately report the matter to the Police or take the injured to the hospital. PW2 Anil has admitted in his testimony that Kulbir is related to him and that Kulbir had come to his t and had disclosed the registration Again, it is discrepant that if Anil found the registration number of the offending vehicle 5-7 days after the accident, then why was the same not conveyed to the Police till 29.11.2017. It was in 6 It is incomprehensible that if, Kulbir was in the was he not examined. is FIR was registered by Anil against name of respondent No.1 driver has been mentioned for the first time on in has he offending vehicle on a why was the number of the offending vehicle and identity of the respondent No.1 not disclosed by Kulbir to the appellants whom he claimed to have known for the past 25 years. There is xplanation as to why Kulbir did not immediately report the matter PW2 Anil has admitted in his testimony that Kulbir is related to him and that Kulbir had come to his t and had disclosed the registration Again, it is discrepant that if Anil found the 7 days after the accident, It was in SUNENA 2025.05.02 17:43 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document these circumstances that the learned Tribunal rightly concluded that Kulbir was a procured witness. 11. from the relied upon judgments as the same are distinguishable on facts and law. 12. 13. 30.04.2025 Sunena Whether speaking/reasoned: Whether reportable: these circumstances that the learned Tribunal rightly concluded that Kulbir was a procured witness. Learned counsel for the appellants can derive no benefit from the relied upon judgments as the same are distinguishable on facts In view of the above, present appeal is Pending application(s) if any also stand(s) disposed of. Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether reportable: Yes/No these circumstances that the learned Tribunal rightly concluded that Kulbir Learned counsel for the appellants can derive no benefit from the relied upon judgments as the same are distinguishable on facts In view of the above, present appeal is dismissed. Pending application(s) if any also stand(s) disposed of. (Nidhi Gupta) Judge 6 these circumstances that the learned Tribunal rightly concluded that Kulbir Learned counsel for the appellants can derive no benefit from the relied upon judgments as the same are distinguishable on facts SUNENA 2025.05.02 17:43 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document