FAO-5294 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 222 Saroj Bala and others Jiwan Ram and others CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA Present: - NIDHI GUPTA, J. 1. appeal is of the 2014. However, notice is the main appeal is yet to the issued as, the same was repeatedly adjourned either at the request of or on account of non 2. challenging the Award dated Accident Claims Tribunal, Tribunal’) whereby the 28.10.2010/06.02.2013 Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ( 05 claimants are the widow; aged parents of deceased 3. claim petition are that on Mahindra Xylo, bearing registration No.HR 5294-2014 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Saroj Bala and others Versus Ram and others CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA Mr. Sandeep Goyat, Advocate for the appellants. Mr. Nigam K. Bhardwaj, Advocate for respondent No. 2-Insurance Co. NIDHI GUPTA, J. At the very outset, it is pertinent to mention appeal is of the 2014. However, notice is the main appeal is yet to the issued as, the same was repeatedly adjourned either at the request of or on account of non-appearance of learned counsel for the appellant. The present appeal has been filed by the claimants challenging the Award dated 20.08.2013 Accident Claims Tribunal, Hisar (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Tribunal’) whereby the Claim Petition .2010/06.02.2013 filed by the appellants under Section Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short- ‘the Act’), has been dismissed. The claimants are the widow; 02 sons aged 1 aged parents of deceased Balbir Singh. Brief facts of the case as set out by the appellants in their claim petition are that on 27.07.2010 deceased Mahindra Xylo, bearing registration No.HR IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO-5294-2014 (O&M) Date of Decision: 24.07.2025 .…Appellants ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA Mr. Sandeep Goyat, Advocate for the appellants. Mr. Nigam K. Bhardwaj, Advocate Insurance Co. is pertinent to mention that the present appeal is of the 2014. However, notice is the main appeal is yet to the issued as, the same was repeatedly adjourned either at the request of or on appearance of learned counsel for the appellant. The present appeal has been filed by the claimants passed by the learned Motor (hereinafter referred to as ‘the learned Claim Petition No. 22 of 2010 dated by the appellants under Section 166 of the ‘the Act’), has been dismissed. The aged 14 and 12 years old; and old Brief facts of the case as set out by the appellants in their 27.07.2010 deceased-Balbir Singh was driving Mahindra Xylo, bearing registration No.HR-38-B-3130 and was going to that the present appeal is of the 2014. However, notice is the main appeal is yet to the issued as, the same was repeatedly adjourned either at the request of or on The present appeal has been filed by the claimants Motor learned 22 of 2010 dated of the ‘the Act’), has been dismissed. The ; and old Brief facts of the case as set out by the appellants in their Balbir Singh was driving 3130 and was going to RISHU KATARIA 2025.07.25 16:45 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. FAO-5294 Azad Nagar, Hisar, alongwith his brother Rakesh Kumar Balsmand; that when they reached near Police Naka, Balsmand Canal, on Hisar Rajgarh road, a Bolero Camper (Pick No.RJ-18-GA respondent No.1 in a rash and ne side, suddenly turned his Bolero Camper and hit the side of Bolero Camper into the front portion this impact, Balbir Singh received multiple and serious injuries on his abdomen. operated on 03.08.2010, but due to the serious injuries suffered in the accident, was alleged that police came to Sapra Hospital, Hisa enquired about the accident from Rakesh Kumar and Balbir Singh and they narrated the above said version to the police, police obtained their signatures on blank papers and assured them that action will be taken against the driver of Bo 03.09.2010 Rakesh Kumar, brother of Balbir Singh, went to Police Post Court Complex, Hisar, and enquired about that in daily diary the accident Rakesh Kumar filed an application against the respondent filed. 4. evidence adduced before it, came to the conclusio vehicle i.e. 5294-2014 (O&M) -2- Azad Nagar, Hisar, alongwith his brother Rakesh Kumar Balsmand; that when they reached near Police Naka, Balsmand Canal, on Hisar Rajgarh road, a Bolero Camper (Pick GA-1851 (hereinafter “the offending vehicle”) respondent No.1 in a rash and negligent manner, came from Kaimri road side, suddenly turned his Bolero Camper and hit the side of Bolero Camper into the front portion of the above said Mahindra Xylo. D this impact, Balbir Singh received multiple and serious injuries on his . The injured was shifted to Sapra Hospital Hisar; he was operated on 03.08.2010, but due to the serious injuries suffered in the accident, he could not survive and died on 08.08.2010. It was alleged that police came to Sapra Hospital, Hisa enquired about the accident from Rakesh Kumar and Balbir Singh and they narrated the above said version to the police, police obtained their signatures on blank papers and assured them that action will be taken against the driver of Bolero Camper. It 03.09.2010 Rakesh Kumar, brother of Balbir Singh, went to Police Post Court Complex, Hisar, and enquired about in daily diary the accident was shown as per chance, upon which Rakesh Kumar filed an application to SSP against the respondent No.1.With these pleadings, claim petition was The learned Tribunal on the basis of the pleadings and evidence adduced before it, came to the conclusio i.e. Bolero Camper (Pick-Up), bearing registration No.RJ Azad Nagar, Hisar, alongwith his brother Rakesh Kumar from village Balsmand; that when they reached near Police Naka, Balsmand Canal, on Hisar Rajgarh road, a Bolero Camper (Pick-Up), bearing registration (hereinafter “the offending vehicle”), being driven by gligent manner, came from Kaimri road side, suddenly turned his Bolero Camper and hit the side of Bolero of the above said Mahindra Xylo. Due to this impact, Balbir Singh received multiple and serious injuries on his injured was shifted to Sapra Hospital Hisar; he was operated on 03.08.2010, but due to the serious injuries that Balbir Singh he could not survive and died on 08.08.2010. It was alleged that police came to Sapra Hospital, Hisar, on 28.07.2010 and enquired about the accident from Rakesh Kumar and Balbir Singh and they narrated the above said version to the police, police obtained their signatures on blank papers and assured them that action will be taken lero Camper. It was further alleged that on 03.09.2010 Rakesh Kumar, brother of Balbir Singh, went to Police Post Court Complex, Hisar, and enquired about investigation, and discovered was shown as per chance, upon which SSP Hisar, for registration of FIR With these pleadings, claim petition was earned Tribunal on the basis of the pleadings and evidence adduced before it, came to the conclusion that alleged offending Up), bearing registration No.RJ-18-GA- from village Balsmand; that when they reached near Police Naka, Balsmand Canal, on Up), bearing registration , being driven by gligent manner, came from Kaimri road side, suddenly turned his Bolero Camper and hit the side of Bolero ue to this impact, Balbir Singh received multiple and serious injuries on his injured was shifted to Sapra Hospital Hisar; he was that Balbir Singh he could not survive and died on 08.08.2010. It r, on 28.07.2010 and enquired about the accident from Rakesh Kumar and Balbir Singh and they narrated the above said version to the police, police obtained their signatures on blank papers and assured them that action will be taken was further alleged that on 03.09.2010 Rakesh Kumar, brother of Balbir Singh, went to Police Post investigation, and discovered was shown as per chance, upon which Hisar, for registration of FIR With these pleadings, claim petition was earned Tribunal on the basis of the pleadings and alleged offending RISHU KATARIA 2025.07.25 16:45 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. FAO-5294 1851 was not involved in the accident. appellants was dismissed. 5. appellants that the learned Tribunal petition as, investigated of vehicle was having the abovementioned registration No. 1851 and never tried to vehicle as the vehicle belongs to the Jindal Factory, Hisar. pertinent to mention here that the police and found the matter regarding involvement of the vehicle Truck false. The vehicle is having this registration n police had not registered any case against the involvement of offending vehicle and also not registered any case against its driver. can safely reasons best known to them. 6. to prove their case on the preponderance of the probabilities. As such, the learned Tribunal was in patent error in dismissing the claim petition. Moreover, lear were entirely dependent on the deceased. It is accordingly prayed that the present appeal be allowed; and the impugned Award be set aside. 7. disputes the submissions made on that impugned Award suffers from no error whatsoever. It is submitted 5294-2014 (O&M) -3- was not involved in the accident. Accordingly, claim petition of the appellants was dismissed. It is, inter alia, submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that the learned Tribunal has , it had failed to appreciate that ed the matter. Nowhere has the police tried to find out what kind of vehicle was having the abovementioned registration No. and never tried to interrogate the driver and owner of the offending vehicle as the vehicle belongs to the Jindal Factory, Hisar. pertinent to mention here that the police had and found the matter regarding involvement of the vehicle Truck . The police had not taken any step to find out that what kind of vehicle is having this registration number i.e. police had not registered any case against the involvement of offending vehicle and also not registered any case against its driver. be said that the police has concealed the real offender reasons best known to them. It is further submitted that the appellants to prove their case on the preponderance of the probabilities. As such, the learned Tribunal was in patent error in dismissing the claim petition. Moreover, learned Tribunal has also failed to appreciate that the claimants were entirely dependent on the deceased. It is accordingly prayed that the present appeal be allowed; and the impugned Award be set aside. Per Contra, learned counsel for respondent No.3 disputes the submissions made on behalf of the appellants and submit that impugned Award suffers from no error whatsoever. It is submitted Accordingly, claim petition of the submitted by learned counsel for the s erred in dismissing the claim it had failed to appreciate that the police had not properly the police tried to find out what kind of vehicle was having the abovementioned registration No.RJ-18-GA- interrogate the driver and owner of the offending vehicle as the vehicle belongs to the Jindal Factory, Hisar. Further, it is had not even registered the FIR and found the matter regarding involvement of the vehicle Truck-Trolla as not taken any step to find out that what kind of umber i.e. RJ-18-GA-1851 and the police had not registered any case against the involvement of offending vehicle and also not registered any case against its driver. Therefore, it said that the police has concealed the real offender for 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. ned Tribunal has also failed to appreciate that the claimants were entirely dependent on the deceased. It is accordingly prayed that the present appeal be allowed; and the impugned Award be set aside. learned counsel for respondent No.3-Insurance behalf of the appellants and submits that impugned Award suffers from no error whatsoever. It is submitted Accordingly, claim petition of the submitted by learned counsel for the in dismissing the claim properly the police tried to find out what kind interrogate the driver and owner of the offending registered the FIR Trolla as not taken any step to find out that what kind of and the police had not registered any case against the involvement of offending , it for were only required to prove their case on the preponderance of the probabilities. As such, the ned Tribunal has also failed to appreciate that the claimants were entirely dependent on the deceased. It is accordingly prayed that the surance that impugned Award suffers from no error whatsoever. It is submitted RISHU KATARIA 2025.07.25 16:45 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. FAO-5294 that the alleged offending vehicle has been falsely implicated in the accident in question. place at Rajasthan; whereas the claim petition was filed accordingly prayed that the present appeal be dismissed. 8. 9. detail. 10. appellants. 27.07.2010 and Balbir Singh succumbed to injuries on 08.08 deceased had registered wherein he had stated that GA-1851, was involved in the accident in question. However, as per the affidavit Ex. PW brother of deceased the accident was (Pick-Up), bearing registration No.RJ explanation by the appellants as to how this huge discrepancy occurred in the statement made by the deceased, eyewitness at the time of Up), was empty and the police and converted the same into DDR Ex. R 11. recorded on the basis of statement of deceased that when he reached near Naka at Rajgarh road, then suddenly a cow 5294-2014 (O&M) -4- that the alleged offending vehicle has been falsely implicated in the accident in question. It is further submitted that the accident had taken place at Rajasthan; whereas the claim petition was filed accordingly prayed that the present appeal be dismissed. No other argument is raised on behalf of the appellants. I have heard learned counsel and perused the case file in I find no merit in the arguments advanced on behalf of the appellants. The facts on record are that the accident had taken place on 27.07.2010 and Balbir Singh succumbed to injuries on 08.08 deceased had registered a DDR No. 10 dated wherein he had stated that a Truck/Tralla bearing registration No. , was involved in the accident in question. However, as per the affidavit Ex. PW-4/A tendered into evidence by brother of deceased-Balbir Singh, and an accident was caused by the offending vehicle make Up), bearing registration No.RJ explanation by the appellants as to how this huge discrepancy occurred in the statement made by the deceased, eyewitness. In cross-examination, Rakesh Kumar (PW at the time of accident the offending vehicle was empty and the police had taken his signatures on blank papers and converted the same into DDR Ex. R-1. It is also to be noted that in DDR Ex. R recorded on the basis of statement of deceased when he reached near Naka at Rajgarh road, then suddenly a cow that the alleged offending vehicle has been falsely implicated in the It is further submitted that the accident had taken place at Rajasthan; whereas the claim petition was filed at Hisar. It is accordingly prayed that the present appeal be dismissed. No other argument is raised on behalf of the appellants. heard learned counsel and perused the case file in I find no merit in the arguments advanced on behalf of the The facts on record are that the accident had taken place on 27.07.2010 and Balbir Singh succumbed to injuries on 08.08.2010. The DDR No. 10 dated 28.07.2010 (Ex.R-1), Truck/Tralla bearing registration No.RJ-18- , was involved in the accident in question. However, as per the 4/A tendered into evidence by PW-4 Rakesh Kumar, eye witness to the occurrence, by the offending vehicle make Bolero Camper Up), bearing registration No.RJ-18-GA-1851. There is no explanation by the appellants as to how this huge discrepancy had occurred in the statement made by the deceased, and by the alleged examination, Rakesh Kumar (PW-4) had stated that vehicle i.e. Bolero Camper (Pick- had taken his signatures on blank papers 1. also to be noted that in DDR Ex. R-1 which was recorded on the basis of statement of deceased-Bablir Singh, he had stated when he reached near Naka at Rajgarh road, then suddenly a cow that the alleged offending vehicle has been falsely implicated in the It is further submitted that the accident had taken It is heard learned counsel and perused the case file in I find no merit in the arguments advanced on behalf of the The facts on record are that the accident had taken place on .2010. The Rakesh Kumar, , Bolero Camper There is no alleged that 1 which was he had stated when he reached near Naka at Rajgarh road, then suddenly a cow RISHU KATARIA 2025.07.25 16:45 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. FAO-5294 came on the road and due to the lights of the vehicle coming from the opposite side and in order to save the cow his vehicle struck to the truck going ahead of his that the accident had taken place appearance of the cow vehicle. The number of the truck with which the said acciden was not mentioned in DDR. Thereafter Rakesh Kumar, brother of Balbir Singh and alleged eye witness of the occurrence made application to S.S.P. Hisar, in which it was stated that at the time of occur truck/tralla No.RJ turned suddenly, vehicle being driven by the deceased. Thereupon, the alighted from the truck. However, there fled away from the spot said truck was related to Jindal Factory and due to their pressure the police did not record the FIR. It was further stated that the name of dr of truck/tralla No.RJ resident of village Ladsar, Tehsil and District Jhunjhnu (Rajasthan). the above, it is clear that different versions of the accident have been given by the Claimants at different times. It is also that the claim petition was initially filed alleging that accident had taken place with a truck/trolla. However, the claim petition was subsequently amended to now state that the accident had occurred with the Bolero. 12. discrepancies Award, which reads as follows: 5294-2014 (O&M) -5- came on the road and due to the lights of the vehicle coming from the opposite side and in order to save the cow his vehicle struck to the truck going ahead of his vehicle. In the initial version, Balbir Singh had stated that the accident had taken place due to darkness, due to sudden appearance of the cow because of which he had lost control/balance vehicle. The number of the truck with which the said acciden was not mentioned in DDR. Thereafter Rakesh Kumar, brother of Balbir Singh and alleged eye witness of the occurrence made application to S.S.P. Hisar, in which it was stated that at the time of occur truck/tralla No.RJ-18-GA-1851, came from Kaimri road side, which turned suddenly, and the side of the truck being driven by the deceased. Thereupon, the from the truck. However, upon noticing the gathering of people fled away from the spot. It was further alleged in the DDR that said truck was related to Jindal Factory and due to their pressure the police did not record the FIR. It was further stated that the name of dr of truck/tralla No.RJ-18-GA-1851 is Jiwa resident of village Ladsar, Tehsil and District Jhunjhnu (Rajasthan). the above, it is clear that different versions of the accident have been given by the Claimants at different times. It is also the claim petition was initially filed alleging that accident had taken place with a truck/trolla. However, the claim petition was subsequently amended to now state that the accident had occurred with the Bolero. Accordingly, the learned Tribunal on discrepancies had drawn following conclusion in para 14 of the impugned Award, which reads as follows:- came on the road and due to the lights of the vehicle coming from the opposite side and in order to save the cow his vehicle struck to the truck . In the initial version, Balbir Singh had stated due to darkness, due to sudden because of which he had lost control/balance of the vehicle. The number of the truck with which the said accident took place was not mentioned in DDR. Thereafter Rakesh Kumar, brother of Balbir Singh and alleged eye witness of the occurrence made application to S.S.P. Hisar, in which it was stated that at the time of occurrence a from Kaimri road side, which struck into the Mahindra Xylo being driven by the deceased. Thereupon, the driver of truck/tralla upon noticing the gathering of people . It was further alleged in the DDR that the said truck was related to Jindal Factory and due to their pressure the police did not record the FIR. It was further stated that the name of driver 1851 is Jiwan Ram son of Bhalla Ram, resident of village Ladsar, Tehsil and District Jhunjhnu (Rajasthan).From the above, it is clear that different versions of the accident have been given by the Claimants at different times. It is also imperative to point out the claim petition was initially filed alleging that accident had taken place with a truck/trolla. However, the claim petition was subsequently amended to now state that the accident had occurred with the Bolero. Accordingly, the learned Tribunal on the basis of the above wn following conclusion in para 14 of the impugned came on the road and due to the lights of the vehicle coming from the opposite side and in order to save the cow his vehicle struck to the truck . In the initial version, Balbir Singh had stated due to darkness, due to sudden of the t took place was not mentioned in DDR. Thereafter Rakesh Kumar, brother of Balbir Singh and alleged eye witness of the occurrence made application to rence a from Kaimri road side, which Mahindra Xylo driver of truck/tralla upon noticing the gathering of people the said truck was related to Jindal Factory and due to their pressure the iver n Ram son of Bhalla Ram, From the above, it is clear that different versions of the accident have been imperative to point out the claim petition was initially filed alleging that accident had taken place with a truck/trolla. However, the claim petition was subsequently above wn following conclusion in para 14 of the impugned RISHU KATARIA 2025.07.25 16:45 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. FAO-5294 13. satisfactory explanation for these glaring discrepancies in the case put forth by the claimants. It would therefore appear that the offending vehicle was falsely involved only with a view to get the compensation. 14. 15. 24.07.2025 rishu 5294-2014 (O&M) -6- “14. From the documents discussed above, the only inference which can be drawn is that the with a truck or tralla. Initially the claim petition and later on the petition was amended and it was pleaded that the offending vehicle was Bolero Pick Up. Therefore, the vehicle initially stated by the deceased and the alleged eyewitness PW4 Rakesh, does not tally with the vehicle involved in the petition. The Bolero Camper (Pick-Up) can not be said to be a truck/tralla. It is a jeep converted into a Pick-Up van for the purpose of transporting goods. There is a large difference in truck/tralla and Bolero Champer. In application given to S.S.P. Hisar, the kind of vehicle was mentioned as truck/tralla, so that the same may tally with the statement of Balbir Singh, upon which DDR was recorded. Though the registration number of truck tralla and Bolero Camper is same but Bolero Camper can not be replaced the truck tralla initially stated to be an offending vehicle. Learned counsel for the appellants is unable to satisfactory explanation for these glaring discrepancies in the case put forth by the claimants. It would therefore appear that the offending vehicle was falsely involved only with a view to get the compensation. In view of the above, present appeal is hereby Pending application(s), if any also stand(s) disposed of. .07.2025 Whether speaking/reasoned Whether Reportable From the documents discussed above, the only inference which can be drawn is that the accident took place a truck or tralla. Initially truck/tralla was impleaded in the claim petition and later on the petition was amended and it was pleaded that the offending vehicle was Bolero Pick- Up. Therefore, the vehicle initially stated by the deceased PW4 Rakesh, does not tally with the vehicle involved in the petition. The Bolero Camper Up) can not be said to be a truck/tralla. It is a jeep Up van for the purpose of transporting goods. There is a large difference in the size and shape of truck/tralla and Bolero Champer. In application given to S.S.P. Hisar, the kind of vehicle was mentioned as truck/tralla, so that the same may tally with the statement of Balbir Singh, upon which DDR was recorded. Though the tion number of truck tralla and Bolero Camper is same but Bolero Camper can not be replaced the truck tralla to be an offending vehicle.“ Learned counsel for the appellants is unable to give any satisfactory explanation for these glaring discrepancies in the case put forth by the claimants. It would therefore appear that the offending vehicle was falsely involved only with a view to get the compensation. t appeal is hereby dismissed. Pending application(s), if any also stand(s) disposed of. ( NIDHI GUPTA ) JUDGE Yes/No Yes/No From the documents discussed above, the only accident took place truck/tralla was impleaded in the claim petition and later on the petition was amended and Up. Therefore, the vehicle initially stated by the deceased PW4 Rakesh, does not tally with the vehicle involved in the petition. The Bolero Camper Up) can not be said to be a truck/tralla. It is a jeep Up van for the purpose of transporting the size and shape of truck/tralla and Bolero Champer. In application given to S.S.P. Hisar, the kind of vehicle was mentioned as truck/tralla, so that the same may tally with the statement of Balbir Singh, upon which DDR was recorded. Though the tion number of truck tralla and Bolero Camper is same but Bolero Camper can not be replaced the truck tralla give any satisfactory explanation for these glaring discrepancies in the case put forth by the claimants. It would therefore appear that the offending RISHU KATARIA 2025.07.25 16:45 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment.