IN THE HI 223 Mukesh & Oth Jai Pal & Anot CORAM: Present:- NIDHI GUPTA, their claim pe (hereinafter r 20.09.2012. T Motor Vehicle claimants/app the deceased 2. claim petition appellants ha Surinder @ Sa motor vehicul E HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HA Others Vs. nother HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE NID Mr.Harnanak Singh Bhatti Mr. Manish Mittal, Advocat for the appellants. Ms. Suman Jain, Advocate Mr. Man Mohan, Advocate for respondent No.2. *** PTA, J. The claimants are in app petition by the learned Motor Acc er referred to as “the learned Tr . The claim petition was filed und hicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referr /appellants are the widow, two min sed-Surinder @ Salinder. Learned counsel for the ition of the appellants has been had proven by leading cogent e Salinder had died due to the inj icular accident that took place on D HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO-1505-2013 (O&M) Date of decision: 04.02.2025 ...Appellant(s) ...Respondent(s) NIDHI GUPTA atti, Advocate for ocate ate with cate appeal against the dismissal of Accident Claims Tribunal, Karnal d Tribunal”) vide Award dated under Sections 166/140 of the eferred to as “the Act”). The 5 minor children, and parents of the claimants submits that the een wrongly dismissed as the nt evidence that the deceased injuries suffered by him in the on 15.09.2009 due to the rash 7 SUNENA 2025.02.15 09:56 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document and negligent (hereinafter re The offending respondent N the evidence appreciate tha an agriculturi dismissing the the evidence o that the accid The accident h failed to admi considered the death has bee same day i.e. prayed that th 3. appellants. 4. perused the ca 5. appellants are for some urge gent driving of tractor bearing re er referred to as “the offending ve ding vehicle was owned by respo t No.2. However, the learned Tribu nce led by the appellants. The lea that the deceased was only 38 yea lturist and was the only earning the claim petition, the learned Trib ce of eyewitness Vikram Singh/PW ccident took place due to the neg nt has also been admitted by respo dmit his negligence in the same. d the fact that even as per the Post been given as roadside accident. i.e. 15.09.2009 against respondents t the impugned Award be set aside No other argument is I have heard learned cou e case file in great detail. The facts as set out in are that the deceased was going fr urgent domestic work on his mot g registration No.UP-25AC-9912 g vehicle”) by respondent No.1. spondent No.1 and insured by Tribunal has failed to appreciate learned Tribunal also failed to years of age and was working as ing hand of the family. While Tribunal has failed to appreciate /PW3 who has specifically stated negligence of respondent No.1. spondent No.1, however, he has e. The learned Tribunal has not ost-Mortem Report, the cause of nt. Even FIR was lodged on the ents no.1 and 2. It is accordingly side being against the facts. is made on behalf of the counsel for the appellants and in the claim petition by the ng from village Gagsina to Karnal motorcycle bearing registration 7 SUNENA 2025.02.15 09:56 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document No.HR-05U-33 the correct lef on the said mo Barota, the of going ahead respondent No in a zig-zag ma deceased ble respondent N the process without giving struck the mo Vikram Singh accident, the which he su compensation 6. accident, a cr Sections 279 a the basis of st Ranjit Singh al by his motor question. How 3339 being driven by him at a ve left-hand side of the road. Vikram d motorcycle. When they reached n e offending vehicle along with Bug ad of the motorcycle and the s t No.1 in a rash and negligent man g manner. For the purpose of crossi blew the horn of his motorcycl t No.1 gave side to the deceased. ss of overtaking/crossing the of iving any signal or blowing horn, in a motorcycle of the deceaseddue ngh fell on the ground along with the deceased received multiple grie subsequently died. Accordingly, tion. It is to be noted that in a criminal case bearing FIR No.16 79 and 304-A IPC was registered at of statement made by one Ranjit s h along with his friend Ram Gopalo otorcycle to his house when he However, although Ranjit Singh a very slow, moderate speed on ram Singh/PW3 was pillion rider ed near tower installed in village Buggi attached in the back, was he same was being driven by manner and in a very high speed ossing the offending vehicle, the cycle. After hearing the horn, sed. When the deceased was in offending vehicle, the buggi , in a rash and negligent manner, ue to which the deceased and ith the motorcycle. Due to this grievous injuries, as a result of ngly, the claimant prayed for t in respect of the above said o.169 dated 15.09.2009 under d at Police Station Madhuban on jit s/o Gordhan. As per the FIR, palo son of Chet Ram were going he witnessed the accident in gh was eye witness and best 7 SUNENA 2025.02.15 09:56 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document witness, yet, Tribunal. 7. registered aga No.1 has not conducted int Police. Therea No.1 against appellants has Further, there manner, and f offending vehi driving the off as to how it w question had b FIR was regist Ranjit has not eyewitness an Vikram Singh h identity of th established. accident took investigation t et, he has not been examined b It is also pertinent that against unknown person and un ot even been challaned by the Poli into the said FIR, an untraced ereafter, a private complaint was inst respondent No.1 (Ex.P2). Bu has failed to disclose the fate of here is nothing on record to indic nd from whom, the claimants came vehicle, and the identity of the Drive e offending vehicle. As such, the clai it was subsequently discovered ad been caused by the offending ve gistered on the statement of Ranjit not been examined by the claiman s and pillion rider is not mention gh has emerged for the first time in f the offending vehicle could not In the FIR and in the claim petit ook place with “tractor buggi”. Ho n that the accident was with some d by the claimants before the that the above said FIR was unknown vehicle. Respondent Police.In fact, upon investigation report has been filed by the as got registered by appellant But learned counsel for the e of the said private complaint. ndicate as to how, and in what ame to know the number of the Driver/respondent no.1 who was claimants have failed to disclose d by them that the accident in ng vehicle. Most importantly, the anjit s/o Gordhan. However, said mants.Even Vikram Singh alleged tioned in the FIR.The name of e in the claim petition. Even the not be properly verified and/or petition, it has been stated that . However, it was found during ome Jhota Buggi and not with a 7 SUNENA 2025.02.15 09:56 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document tractor. It is fo claim petition respondent N findings of the fil is for these reasons that the learned tition had been filed by the c t No.1 only in order to get the f the learned Tribunal are as under: “13. On the other hand, it was co insurance company that in this ca in question is not proved. FIR E statement of Ranjit son of Gordh vehicle and unknown driver. On respondent no. 1 has not been ch the case was not found true, thr filed a private complaint agains Ex.P2, yet, it is still pending de examined as witness in this case to the claimants. He has neither b any evidence on the record to sho also no death report of Ranjit o name of Vikram emerged is also had been pillion rider on the mot would have got FIR of this case re there is no mentioned in the FIR rider. There is no explanation co name of the pillion rider was not time his name emerged in the cla of this case has been sent as un the course of investigation, it was accident was with some JhotaBug For this very reason, even in the F the word 'Tractor-buggi' is appear connection with the tractor. If at rned Tribunal concluded that the e claimants in collusion with he compensation. The relevant er:- as contended by counsel for the is case accident with the tractor IR Ex. P1 was recorded on the ordhan. FIR is against unknown . On the basis of aforesaid FIR, en challaned by the police. Since , through claimant Mukesh has gainst Jaipal, copy of which is g decision. Ranjit has not been case for the reasons best known her been summoned nor there is o show that he has died. There is jit on the file. From where the also not known. In case Vikram motorcycle of the deceased, he se recorded. Apart from it, even FIR that Vikram was the pillion on coming forth as to why the not given in the FIR. For the first e claim petition. In fact, the FIR un-trace by the police as during was found by the police that the aBuggi and not with the tractor. the FIR and in the claim petition, pearing, otherwise Buggi has no If at all, there is any attachment 7 SUNENA 2025.02.15 09:56 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document fo with the tractor i.e. of trolley and the claimants have filed this clai respondent no.1 and in fact, no ac the tractor in question. 14. In the FIR Ex. P1, word 'trac mentioned in the complaint. The a for the insurance company appea that in fact, accident had taken p and not the tractor in question. E not a substantive piece of evi unknown vehicle and driver. There show as to how the claimants ca tractor in question is involved in th driven by respondent no.1. As per his friend Ram Gopalo son of C motorcycle to his house when he question. Tractor is such a slow tractor had caused the accident Gopal were present at the spot, it they would have been able to t driver and even note down the n examination of Ranjit Singh as wi claimants worst. With the statem name does not figure anywhere in said that accident in question involvement of tractor in questio witness of accident nor Partap Si As such, in fact, there is no evide respondent no.1 had caused th driving the tractor in question. De his affidavit Ex. RW1/A, goes to y and not that of buggi. As such, claim petition in collusion with no accident had taken place with 'tractor-buggi' appear and so is The argument of learned counsel ppeals to reason when he argued ken place with some JhotaBuggi n. Even otherwise, copy of FIR is f evidence. The FIR is against There is nothing on the record to ts came to the collusion that the in the accident which was being s per FIR, Ranjit Singh alongwith of Chet Ram was going by his en he witnessed the accident in low moving vehicle that in case ent and if Ranjit Singh and Ram ot, it is very much probable that to track the tractor as well its the number of the tractor. Non- s witness, makes the case of the atement of Vikram PW3, whose ere including the FIR, it cannot be tion had taken place with the estion. Mukesh PW1 is not the ap Singh father of the deceased. vidence on the file to prove that d the accident in question by n. Deposition of Jaipal by way of es to show that it is a case of 7 SUNENA 2025.02.15 09:56 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 8. or controvert t 9. the impugned 10. 04.02.2025 Sunena Whether spea Whether repo collusion. Though respondent no. tractor in question in this accide FIR against his tractor, yet, ver wanted to favour the claimants a of filing the claim petition. Stat motorcycle of the deceased had tractor buggi by negligent act of manner prove the involvement o accident, for the reasons recorded Learned counsel for the ap ert the aforesaid facts and findings. Accordingly, I find no groun ned Award. In view of the above, pr Pending application(s) if an peaking/reasoned: Yes/No eportable: Yes/No t no.1 denied the involvement of ccident and registration of false , very cleverly respondent no.1 nts and achieve the very purpose Statement of Jai Pal that the had struck against rear side of ct of the deceased himself, in no nt of tractor in question in this rded above.” e appellants is unable to dispute ngs. round is made out to interfere in e, present appeal is dismissed. if any also stand(s) disposed of. (Nidhi Gupta) Judge 7 SUNENA 2025.02.15 09:56 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document