IN THE HI 219 Smt. Santosh Manoj Bhardw CORAM: Present:- NIDHI GUPTA, Court against 2010/2011 fil (hereinafter re Hisar (hereina 01.05.2012. Chaudhary wh 2. claim petition Dawarka Pars and Jitender V alleged offend referred to as E HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HA osh Aggarwal & Another Vs. ardwaj & Others HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE NID Mr. Brea Sandhu, Advocate Ms. Deepali Puri, Advocate for the appellants. Mr. Ashwani Talwar, Advoc for the respondents No.2 a *** PTA, J. The appellants/claimants inst the dismissal of their claim 1 filed under Section 166 of the er referred to as “the Act”) by Mot einafter referred to as “the learned . The 2 claimants are the pare who was 19 years of age at the tim Brief facts of the case as se tion are that on 20.8.2009, deceas Parshad Chaudhary along with Vik er Verma, were going from Shri G fending car bearing registration No o as ‘the alleged offending vehicle’) p. 1 D HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO-3838-2012 (O&M) Date of decision: 10.02.2025 ...Appellant(s) ...Respondent(s) NIDHI GUPTA cate for cate vocate .2 and 5. nts are in appeal before this laim petition bearing No.56 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, ned Tribunal”) vide Award dated parents of the deceased-Vishal time of accident. as set out by the claimants in the ceased Vishal Chaudhary son of Vikas Bhardwaj, Vikas Kaushik hri Ganga Nagar to Delhi in the No. RJ-07-CA/0625 (hereinafter icle’), which was being driven by 10 SUNENA 2025.02.15 10:11 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Vikas Bhardwa road at about not see the t middle of the into the stand Bhardwaj at a accident took no. RJ-07-CA/0 the said accid their dead bo Agroha, where took place on by its driver bearing regist i.e. responde investigation Prasad Chaud recovering fro Superintenden matter upon w against the dr deceased Vish Suratgarh Roa rdwaj. When the car reached near p out 1.30 a.m., then the driver of t he truck bearing registration No. H the road and he could not control tanding truck. At that time the ca at a very high speed and in a rash ook place due to rash and negligent CA/0625 as well as wrong parking ccident, all the four occupants of t d bodies were taken to Maharaja here the post mortem were condu on account of rash and negligent ver Vikas Bhardwaj and the wron gistration no. HR-61/4491, yet the ndent No.1 conspired with the ion of this case closed by the po audhary, the father of the deceas from the shock and mental agon ndent of police, Hisar on 25.3.201 on which the present FIR No.95 da e driver of the offending car. At th Vishal Chaudhary was in the serv Road Shri Ganga Nagar, and was d p. 2 ar police station Agroha, on G.T. of the car Vikas Bhardwaj could o. HR-61/4491, standing in the trol his car and struck the same e car was being driven by Vikas rash and negligent manner. This gent driving of the offending Car ing of Truck No. HR-61/4491. In of the car died at the spot and raja Aggarsain Medical College, nducted. Although the accident ent driving of the offending car rong parking of the said truck the owner of the offending car the local police and got the e police. The claimant Dwarka ceased Vishal Chaudhary, after agony, filed a complaint to the .2010 for reinvestigation of the 5 dated 9.4.2010 was registered At the time of the accident, the service of M/s. Shri Ram Tools, as drawing a salary of Rs.5,000/- 10 SUNENA 2025.02.15 10:11 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document per month. Be doing part tim deceased was claimants wer was unmarrie the family. Al created in th compensation claim petition 3. documentary found that the drivers was ne negligence; an 4. dismissing the ignored the fa No.4 was reg 21.08.2009 its put by the res or regarding a was travelling of age and wa h. Besides that he was also earnin t time job. In total, he was earning was having a diploma from IT Shri G were totally dependent upon the i rried and was contributing his enti . Although no amount of compens n the lives of the claimants, ye tion to the tune of Rs. 60,00,000/ tion was filed. Upon consideration of t ary evidence adduced by the pa t the claimants had miserably faile s negligent or that the accident had and accordingly dismissed the clai Learned counsel for the ap the claim petition of the appellan e fact that in respect of the accide registered by eyewitness Manoj/PW itself. It is submitted that during respondents to PW3 regarding any ng any Neelgai coming in front of th lling. It is further submitted that the d was earning Rs.5,000/- per month p. 3 rning Rs.10,000/- per month by ning Rs.15,000/- per month. The hri Ganga Nagar (Rajasthan). The he income of the deceased who entire income for the welfare of pensation can fill up the lacuna , yet they have claimed the 00/-. With these averments the of the pleadings, and oral & parties, the learned Tribunal failed to show that either of the had occurred as a result of their claim petition of the appellants. e appellants submits that while llants, the learned Tribunal has cident dated 20.08.2009, a DDR j/PW3 on the very next day i.e. ring evidence, no question was any negligence of the car driver of the car in which the deceased t the deceased was only 19 years onth at the time of the accident 10 SUNENA 2025.02.15 10:11 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document and the claima it is admitted Rs.8,000/- per housewife. 5. that the wife, who had also the Motor Acc Award dated awarded with Company agai was dismisse accordingly pr 6. Company opp submits that have wrongly said witness the events d dismissal of th 7. 8. perused the ca aimants were dependent upon him ted that the claimant No.2/father o per month. The claimant No.1/mo Learned counsel for the ife, children and widowed mother lso died in the same accident, had Accident Claims Tribunal, Karkardu ated 31.03.2014 and compensati ith interest @ 9% per annum. The against the Award dated 31.03.2014 issed vide order dated 13.05.2 ly prayed that the present appeal be Learned counsel for respon opposes the prayer made by ld. co hat there is no error in the impug gly relied upon the statement of al ss has given seriously contradictor ts dated 20.08.2009. Learned cou of the present appeal. No other argument is made I have heard learned co e case file in great detail. p. 4 him. However, on a Court query er of the deceased was earning /mother of the deceased was a the appellants further submits her of deceased-Jitender Verma had filed a claim petition before arduma; which was allowed vide sation of Rs.49,12,225/- was The appeal filed by the Insurance 2014 before the Delhi High Court 05.2016 (Annexure P1). It is al be also allowed. spondents No.2 and 5/Insurance counsel for the appellants and pugned Award. The appellants of alleged eyewitness PW3as the ctory and discrepant versions of counsel accordingly prays for ade on behalf of the parties. counsel for the parties and 10 SUNENA 2025.02.15 10:11 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 9. of the appell intervening ni Vishal Chaudh stationary truc died on the s PW3/one Man 10. before the pol At about 2.00 various vehicl having tea e standing on t were taking te came running Fatehabad sid which was sta further menti offending car account of th Agroha regard he again categ driver of the o I find no merit in the subm pellants. The accident in questio g night of 20-21.8.2009, when the audhary and three other persons truckbearing registration No. HR- he spot. The accident was alleged Manoj son of Karan Singh. In his initial statement (Ex police, he had stated he was work 2.00 a.m. on 21.8.2009, he was pre hicles were parked and the driver a etc. The truck bearing regist on the katcha portion of road an g tea. In the meantime two antelo ing on the road and the driver of th side lost its balance and struck th s standing on its own right side and entioned in his initial statement car went under the truck and t f the serious injuries received. He garding the accident and his statem ategorically mentioned that the acc he offending car had lost control an p. 5 submissions advanced on behalf stion had taken place on the the car in which the deceased ons were driving, hit into the -61/4491. All the four persons ged to have been witnessed by t (Ex.P-2), made by PW3/Manoj orking in a Dhaba on G.T. road. s present at the said Dhaba and rivers and the conductors were gistration No. HR-61/4491was d and its driver and conductor ntelopes (stray cattle) Neel Gai, the offending car coming from ck the car into the parked truck and on the katcha portion. PW3 ent that virtually half of the d the four occupants died on He informed the police station atement was recorded in which accident had taken place as the ol and balance on account of the 10 SUNENA 2025.02.15 10:11 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document sudden appea responsible fo No.4 dated 21 11. no.2/ father o No.95 dated 9 427 IPC again driver of the s report Ex.P4 12. said DDR no.4 different vers immediately a stated that th offending truc in the middle placedue to ra of truck No.H careless in driv the truck in th However, in Ex.P2 was reco pearance of two stray cattle on th le for that. On the basis of this sta d 21.8.2009 was recorded. Subsequently, on an app er of the deceased the matter wa ed 9.4.2010, came to be registered gainst Vikas Bhardwaj, driver of t the said offending car had expired was filed in respect of the FIR. However, it is notable that no.4, in his evidence as PW3 before version from that mentioned in th ely after the accident. In his sworn at the driver of the car Vikas Bh truck bearing registration No. HR dle of the road. It was now stated to rash and negligent driving of the No.HR-61-4491. According to him, driving whereas the driver of the tr in the middle of the road. There wa in cross-examination he admitted recorded by the police. Page 6 of 10 n the road and that no one was statement of Manoj PW3, DDR application made by Claimant r was reinvestigated and an FIR ered under sections 279, 304-A, of the offending car. Since the ired in the accident, untraceable that Manoj/author of the above efore the Tribunal gave a wholly n the DDR which was recorded orn affidavit Ex. PW3/A, he now s Bhardwaj, could not see the HR-61/4491 which was standing ted that the accident had taken the car, as well as wrong parking him, the driver of the car was he truck was negligent in parking was no mention of any Neelgai. itted that his initial statement 10 SUNENA 2025.02.15 10:11 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 13. the Tribunal, i the said witne before the le middle of the stated that th Kaccha portion there was ne whereas prev negligent and appearance o the car to lose evidence befo 14. proceedings w of and signed Om Parkash C Ram, Neeraj C Kumar and H Market, Surat was an accide emergence of From the above evidence al, it is clear that a different versio itness. The glaring improvements a e learned Tribunal that the truck the road - whereas initially PW3 t the truck was parked on its corr rtion. The second improvement is th s negligence on part of both, the reviously he had stated that neith and the accident had been ca e of two Neelgai, which had caus lose balance and hit into the stati efore the Tribunal, there is no men It may also be pointe gs were conducted by the investiga ed by as many as 6 witnesses nam sh Chaudhary, Ajit son of Ram Ni raj Chaudhary son of Ratten Lal, Pa d Harish Chaudhary son of Bhanw uratgarh, Rajasthan. The said witn ccident by chance which occurred e of stray cattle on the road as a r p. 7 nce of PW3 as recorded before rsion has now been put forth by ts are that PW3 has now stated uck was wrongly parked in the W3 in his statement Ex.P-2 had correct side of the road on the is that now PW3 has stated that the car as well as the truck - neither of the two vehicles was caused due to the sudden aused Vikas Bhardwaj/driver of stationary truck. However, in his mention of the Neelgai. inted out that the inquest stigating officer in the presence namely Madan Chaudhary son of Niwas, Chiranji Lal son of Siri l, Pawan Chaudhary son of Prem hanwar Lal, all residents of old witnesses also confirmed that it rred on account of the sudden s a result of which the driver of 10 SUNENA 2025.02.15 10:11 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document the car lost it parked on the 15. versions of th that the learn offending veh of the appella Tribunal are as st its balance and struck against th the katcha portion of the road and It was in view of the above f the same incident given by the al earned Tribunal held that the rash vehicle(s) could not be proved and pellant. The Relevant observations re as under:- “29. From the sequence of events to the Tribunal that the present c an abuse of the process of the co one raised any whisper with rega driving of the offending car by its of the offending truck in the m consistent version of PW3 and inquest report that the accident was at fault. It was only after 7 came out with the complaint o investigated by the police and the the person who himself died in th case of the claimants nor that witness of the occurrence, tha signatures of PW3 and the witn under section 174 Cr.P.C. under pressure of the owner of the offe somersault while appearing in th cause of death to the rash and ne of both the vehicles but it is s remained silent for 7 months and did not make any complaint or di or any family member of the d occurred on account of the rash drivers of both the vehicles. There the registration of the FIR is not s negligence in a claim case but the p. 8 t the standing truck, which was and on its right side. ove two inconsistent and varied e alleged sole eyewitness/PW3, ash and negligent driving of the and dismissed the claim petition ons and findings of the learned vents narrated above, it appears ent claim petition is nothing but he court. At the initial stage, no regard to the rash and negligent y its driver or the wrong parking e middle of the road. It is the and the witnesses signing the dent was by chance and no one ter 7 months that the claimant int of case being not properly d the FIR was registered against in the accident. It is neither the that of PW3, the alleged eye that the police obtained the witnesses on the inquest report nder some consideration or the offending car. PW3 has taken a in the court and attributed the nd negligent driving of the driver is surprising to know that he s and did not utter any word or or did not contract the claimant the deceased that the accident rash and negligent act of the here is no denial of the fact that not sine qua non for proving the ut the claimants are supposed to 10 SUNENA 2025.02.15 10:11 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 16. of the learn negligence on put forward compensation 17. derive no ben 1), as in the sa had been gran the car drive bring cogent and reliable evidence compensation under section 166 Under this provision of law, negligence is the only ingredient and in the present case, the claim to show that either of the driv accident occurred as a result of while appearing in the witness bo Singh did not make any utterance and under what circumstances recorded by the police. There is explanation for deviating from hi to the police. In a case Oriental Variyal and others 2007 AC] 128 Apex Court that one the claiman under section 166 of the Act, th upon themselves the burden of es the driver or owner of the vehicl hand, even the driver himself sustained in the accident and he contradict the averments of th evidence so adduced by the claima I find no error whatsoever arned Tribunal. It is clear that th on part of both the vehicles/the ard by the appellant-side only tion. Further, it is my considered benefit from the judgment of the D e said Award dated 31.03.2014, alt granted compensation, the learned river (who had died in the acci p. 9 dence on record in order to claim 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act. aw, the factum of rash and dient for claiming compensation claimants have failed miserably drivers was negligent and the lt of their negligence and even ss box PW3 Manoj son of Karan ance to the effect that as to how nces his statement Ex.P2 was re is no cogent and satisfactory m his earlier stand given by him ental Insurance Co. Ltd. Meena ] 1284 it was held by the Hon'ble imant approached the Tribunal t, they have necessarily to take of establishing the negligence of ehicle concerned. In the case in self succumbed to the injuries d he could not come present to of the claim petition and the laimants.” ver in the above, said reasoning t the different version alleging the truck and the car, has been only in order to claim the ered view that the claimant can e Delhi High Court (Annexure P- , although the claimants therein rned Tribunal had also held both accident) and the truck driver 10 SUNENA 2025.02.15 10:11 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document (respondent b extent of 90 statement ma had hit into th offending car has been filed has expired. 18. made out in dismissed. 19. 10.02.2025 Sunena Whether spea Whether repo nt before the tribunal) guilty of co 90% and 10% respectively. Adm made before the police had cate to the stationary truck with such fo car went under the truck. Further, filed as the driver of the offending d. In view of the above disc in the impugned Award. The pre Pending application(s) if an peaking/reasoned: Yes/No eportable: Yes/No p. 10 f contributory negligence to the Admittedly PW3 in his initial categorically stated that the car h force that virtually half of the er, in the FIR untraceable report ing car, namely Vishal Bhardwaj discussion, I find no ground is present appeal is accordingly, if any also stand(s) disposed of. (Nidhi Gupta) Judge 10 SUNENA 2025.02.15 10:11 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document