FAO-4165 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 219 Smt. Bharti and others Pardeep an CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA Present: - NIDHI GUPTA, J. CM-13336 condonation of delay of by an affidavit, the same is accompanying appeal is condoned. FAO-4165 1. the Award dated Claims Tribunal, Tribunal’) 30.01.2013/0 4165-2015 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Smt. Bharti and others Versus Pardeep and others CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA Mr. Ram Pal Verma, Advocate for the appellants. Ms. Sharmila Sharma, Advocate for respondents No. 1 and 2. Mr. Pardeep Kumar, Advocate for respondent No. 3-Insurance Company. NIDHI GUPTA, J. 13336-CII-2015 Prayer in this application filed under Section condonation of delay of 48 days in re-filing the accompanying appeal. Heard. For the reasons stated in the application which is supported by an affidavit, the same is allowed; and delay of accompanying appeal is condoned. 4165-2015 Challenge in the present appeal filed by the claimants is to the Award dated 25.11.2014 passed by the Claims Tribunal, Sonepat (hereinafter referred to as ‘the learned Tribunal’) whereby the claim petition bearing MACT Case No. 26 da 30.01.2013/06.05.2013 filed by the appellant IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO-4165-2015 (O&M) Date of Decision: 04.04.2025 .…Appellants ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA Ram Pal Verma, Advocate for the appellants. Ms. Sharmila Sharma, Advocate for respondents No. 1 and 2. Mr. Pardeep Kumar, Advocate Insurance Company. Prayer in this application filed under Section 151 CPC, is for filing the accompanying appeal. For the reasons stated in the application which is supported and delay of 48 days in re-filing the Challenge in the present appeal filed by the claimants is to passed by the learned Motor Accident (hereinafter referred to as ‘the learned whereby the claim petition bearing MACT Case No. 26 dated .05.2013 filed by the appellant-claimants under Section 166 is for For the reasons stated in the application which is supported filing the Challenge in the present appeal filed by the claimants is to learned Motor Accident (hereinafter referred to as ‘the learned ted claimants under Section 166 RISHU KATARIA 2025.04.05 16:21 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. FAO-4165 of the Motor Vehicles Act, are the: i) widow; ii) minor son; and iii) parents of deceased who was stated to be 31 years 2. claim petition are that M.P. and was serving as Engineer with M/s Harayna Breweries, Murthal, District Sonipat a unit of SKOL Breweries Limited. On 04.12.2012, the deceased along with were coming back to their residence on their r deceased was driving his motorcycle bearing registration No. MP 5024 and the said Bhupesh Sharma about 07.00 p.m. when they reached near Hanuman Mandir, Murthal Road, Sonipat, the deceased was d speed, by observing the traffic rules and intensity of traffic. A dumper trolley loaded with sand was parked in the middle of the road without any reflector, indicator and without placing any the traffic coming behind it. The deceased could not see the said trolley and struck his motorcycle against the said trolley causing the accident and the deceased died on the spot. The said accident took place due to the rash and negligent driving of his trolley on the road without observing the traffic rules and intensity of the traffic. The deceased was aged about 31 years of age. He was possession a sound physique and he was a man of sober habits. Had the deceased not died in the said accident, he might have lived up to the age of 80 years as the family of deceased is well known for longevity of life. 4165-2015 (O&M) -2- of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, has been dismissed. are the: i) widow; ii) minor son; and iii) parents of deceased who was stated to be 31 years old at the time of accident. Brief facts of the case as averred by the claimants in the claim petition are that deceased Sujan Singh was a resident of M.P. and was serving as Engineer with M/s Harayna Breweries, Murthal, District Sonipat a unit of SKOL Breweries Limited. On 04.12.2012, the deceased along with his colleague Bhupesh Sharma son of Ram Parkash were coming back to their residence on their r deceased was driving his motorcycle bearing registration No. MP 5024 and the said Bhupesh Sharma was coming behind in his car. At about 07.00 p.m. when they reached near Hanuman Mandir, Murthal Road, Sonipat, the deceased was driving his motorcycle at a moderate speed, by observing the traffic rules and intensity of traffic. A dumper trolley loaded with sand was parked in the middle of the road without any reflector, indicator and without placing any the traffic coming behind it. The deceased could not see the said trolley and struck his motorcycle against the said trolley causing the accident and the deceased died on the spot. The said accident took place due to the and negligent driving of respondent No. 1, who has wrongly parked his trolley on the road without observing the traffic rules and intensity of the traffic. The deceased was aged about 31 years of age. He was possession a sound physique and he was a man of sober habits. Had the eased not died in the said accident, he might have lived up to the age of 80 years as the family of deceased is well known for longevity of life. , has been dismissed. The four claimants are the: i) widow; ii) minor son; and iii) parents of deceased - Sujan Singh old at the time of accident. as averred by the claimants in the deceased Sujan Singh was a resident of Gwalior, M.P. and was serving as Engineer with M/s Harayna Breweries, Murthal, District Sonipat a unit of SKOL Breweries Limited. On 04.12.2012, the his colleague Bhupesh Sharma son of Ram Parkash were coming back to their residence on their respective vehicles. The deceased was driving his motorcycle bearing registration No. MP-7-KF- was coming behind in his car. At about 07.00 p.m. when they reached near Hanuman Mandir, Murthal riving his motorcycle at a moderate speed, by observing the traffic rules and intensity of traffic. A dumper trolley loaded with sand was parked in the middle of the road without any reflector, indicator and without placing any substance behind it to warn the traffic coming behind it. The deceased could not see the said trolley and struck his motorcycle against the said trolley causing the accident and the deceased died on the spot. The said accident took place due to the sole respondent No. 1, who has wrongly parked his trolley on the road without observing the traffic rules and intensity of the traffic. The deceased was aged about 31 years of age. He was possession a sound physique and he was a man of sober habits. Had the eased not died in the said accident, he might have lived up to the age of 80 years as the family of deceased is well known for longevity of life. The four claimants Sujan Singh as averred by the claimants in the , M.P. and was serving as Engineer with M/s Harayna Breweries, Murthal, District Sonipat a unit of SKOL Breweries Limited. On 04.12.2012, the his colleague Bhupesh Sharma son of Ram Parkash espective vehicles. The was coming behind in his car. At about 07.00 p.m. when they reached near Hanuman Mandir, Murthal riving his motorcycle at a moderate speed, by observing the traffic rules and intensity of traffic. A dumper trolley loaded with sand was parked in the middle of the road without any it to warn the traffic coming behind it. The deceased could not see the said trolley and struck his motorcycle against the said trolley causing the accident and sole respondent No. 1, who has wrongly parked his trolley on the road without observing the traffic rules and intensity of the traffic. The deceased was aged about 31 years of age. He was possession a sound physique and he was a man of sober habits. Had the eased not died in the said accident, he might have lived up to the age of 80 years as the family of deceased is well known for longevity of life. RISHU KATARIA 2025.04.05 16:21 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. FAO-4165 The claimants were fully dependent upon the deceased for their maintenance and livelihood. The deceased was wo and he was having a very bright future. 3. adduced before it concluded that accident which took place on 04.12.2012 had taken place due to rash and negligent driving of the U-4056 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the offending vehicle’) being driven b respondent No. 1 4. submits that while dismissing the claim petition, the learned Tribunal has failed to take into account the evidence of whom have fully supported that case of the appellants. PW Sharma, eyewitness 04.12.2012 (Ex. P evidence of PW specifically stated that after receiving the information, he had reached at the spot and arrested the accused/driver vehicle/respondent No. 1 herein; and had also taken in trolley vide recovery memo Ex. P learned Tribunal has wrongly dismissed the claim petition filed by the appellants and prays that just and fair compensation may be awarded to the appellant 5. Company vehemently opposes the submissions made on behalf of the 4165-2015 (O&M) -3- The claimants were fully dependent upon the deceased for their maintenance and livelihood. The deceased was wo and he was having a very bright future. The learned Tribunal on the basis of adduced before it concluded that it was not proved on record that the accident which took place on 04.12.2012 had taken place due to rash and negligent driving of the Tractor/Trolley bearing registration No. HR (hereinafter referred to as ‘the offending vehicle’) being driven b respondent No. 1-Pardeep Driver-cum-owner at around 7.00 P.M. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that while dismissing the claim petition, the learned Tribunal has failed to take into account the evidence led by the clai have fully supported that case of the appellants. PW eyewitness of the accident had lodged the FIR No. 452 dated 04.12.2012 (Ex. P-15). The learned Tribunal has also ignored the evidence of PW-5 PSI Surender Kumar, Investigating officer, who had specifically stated that after receiving the information, he had reached at the spot and arrested the accused/driver vehicle/respondent No. 1 herein; and had also taken in vide recovery memo Ex. P-16. It is accordingly, submitted that the learned Tribunal has wrongly dismissed the claim petition filed by the appellants and prays that just and fair compensation may be awarded to the appellant-claimants. Per Contra, learned counsel for respondent No. 3 Company vehemently opposes the submissions made on behalf of the The claimants were fully dependent upon the deceased for their maintenance and livelihood. The deceased was working as an Engineer learned Tribunal on the basis of pleadings and evidence it was not proved on record that the accident which took place on 04.12.2012 had taken place due to rash and Trolley bearing registration No. HR-10- (hereinafter referred to as ‘the offending vehicle’) being driven by owner at around 7.00 P.M. Learned counsel for the appellant-claimants, inter alia, submits that while dismissing the claim petition, the learned Tribunal has led by the claimant witnesses, all have fully supported that case of the appellants. PW-3 Bhupesh of the accident had lodged the FIR No. 452 dated 15). The learned Tribunal has also ignored the mar, Investigating officer, who had specifically stated that after receiving the information, he had reached at the spot and arrested the accused/driver-cum-owner of the offending vehicle/respondent No. 1 herein; and had also taken in possession the 16. It is accordingly, submitted that the learned Tribunal has wrongly dismissed the claim petition filed by the appellants and prays that just and fair compensation may be awarded to learned counsel for respondent No. 3-Insurance Company vehemently opposes the submissions made on behalf of the The claimants were fully dependent upon the deceased for their rking as an Engineer and evidence it was not proved on record that the accident which took place on 04.12.2012 had taken place due to rash and y inter alia, submits that while dismissing the claim petition, the learned Tribunal has all 3 Bhupesh of the accident had lodged the FIR No. 452 dated 15). The learned Tribunal has also ignored the mar, Investigating officer, who had specifically stated that after receiving the information, he had reached at owner of the offending possession the 16. It is accordingly, submitted that the learned Tribunal has wrongly dismissed the claim petition filed by the appellants and prays that just and fair compensation may be awarded to Insurance Company vehemently opposes the submissions made on behalf of the RISHU KATARIA 2025.04.05 16:21 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. FAO-4165 appellant and submits that in actual fact, the deceased had dashed his motor-cycle into the stationary trolley. Even no was attached with the said trolley. There was no registration number on the trolley. As such, the learned Tribunal has correctly held that there was no offending himself. It is Award and the present appeal be dismissed. 6. 7. case file in great detail. 8. appellants. It is undisputed fact on record that the trolley was parked on the road, and it was the deceased who had dashed his motorcycle into the stationery trolley. The very fact that the spot would indicate perished on the spot with the impact of the collision trolley. Perusal of the namely, PW ‘struck his motorcycle against the standing trolley filled with sand’. Thus, it has undisputedly come on record that into the stationery trolley and had died with the impact of the 9. parked at the site of accident. been admitted 4165-2015 (O&M) -4- appellant and submits that in actual fact, the deceased had dashed his cycle into the stationary trolley. Even no was attached with the said trolley. There was no registration number on the trolley. As such, the learned Tribunal has correctly held that there was no offending vehicle, and the accident had take place due to the deceased It is accordingly, submitted that there is no error in the impugned Award and the present appeal be dismissed. No other argument is raised on behalf of the parties. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and case file in great detail. I find no merit in the submissions advanced on behalf of the appellants. It is undisputed fact on record that the trolley was parked on and it was the deceased who had dashed his motorcycle into the stationery trolley. The very fact that the would indicate that he was driving at very high on the spot with the impact of the collision Perusal of the case file reveals that the alleged namely, PW-3 Bhupesh Kumar, had also deposed that ‘struck his motorcycle against the standing trolley filled with sand’. has undisputedly come on record that into the stationery trolley and had died with the impact of the Furthermore, it is also undisputed that parked at the site; and there was no tractor/offending vehicle of accident. Admittedly, the trolley bore no registration number. been admitted by PW-3 Bhupesh Kumar in his cross appellant and submits that in actual fact, the deceased had dashed his cycle into the stationary trolley. Even no tractor/offending vehicle was attached with the said trolley. There was no registration number on the trolley. As such, the learned Tribunal has correctly held that there was and the accident had take place due to the deceased accordingly, submitted that there is no error in the impugned Award and the present appeal be dismissed. No other argument is raised on behalf of the parties. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the find no merit in the submissions advanced on behalf of the appellants. It is undisputed fact on record that the trolley was parked on and it was the deceased who had dashed his motorcycle into the stationery trolley. The very fact that the deceased had died on the that he was driving at very high speed and had on the spot with the impact of the collision with the stationary reveals that the alleged eyewitness deposed that the deceased had ‘struck his motorcycle against the standing trolley filled with sand’. has undisputedly come on record that the deceased had struck into the stationery trolley and had died with the impact of the collision. Furthermore, it is also undisputed that only the trolley was tractor/offending vehicle on the spot Admittedly, the trolley bore no registration number. It has 3 Bhupesh Kumar in his cross-examination that in appellant and submits that in actual fact, the deceased had dashed his was attached with the said trolley. There was no registration number on the trolley. As such, the learned Tribunal has correctly held that there was and the accident had take place due to the deceased accordingly, submitted that there is no error in the impugned RISHU KATARIA 2025.04.05 16:21 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. FAO-4165 his statement to the police he had not mentioned the registration number of the tractor/offending vehicle admitted that the trolley was standing at the spot of ac was no registration number on the said trolley; and that even the tractor/offending vehicle facts, it is actually clear that there was no offending vehicle. As such, there is no question of rash and negligent driving of vehicle by respondent No. 1. 10. Investigating Officer in his cross accident, the trolley was not the motorcycle. PW telephone numbers were written on the trolley including the name of one Pawan; the trolley bore no registration anybody. 11. PW-3 Bhupesh Kumar spot of accident 2 minutes after the occurrence Tribunal has correctly held that PW not witnessed the same. that merely because the respondent No. 1 would not trolley is also owned by respondent No. 1. can be drawn against FIR (Ex. P- 4165-2015 (O&M) -5- his statement to the police he had not mentioned the registration number tractor/offending vehicle or the name of admitted that the trolley was standing at the spot of ac was no registration number on the said trolley; and that even the tractor/offending vehicle was not present at the spot. facts, it is actually clear that there was no offending vehicle. As such, there is no question of rash and negligent driving of vehicle by respondent No. 1. Further, it has been admitted Investigating Officer in his cross-examination that at the time of accident, the trolley was not moving; whereas the deceased was driving the motorcycle. PW-5 has further admitted that several names and telephone numbers were written on the trolley including the name of one Pawan; the trolley bore no registration number, It is also to be kept in mind that it is the own admission of 3 Bhupesh Kumar the alleged eyewitness spot of accident 2 minutes after the occurrence Tribunal has correctly held that PW-3 was not an not witnessed the same. The learned Tribunal has also rightly observed that merely because the tractor/offending vehicle is owned by respondent No. 1 would not automatically le trolley is also owned by respondent No. 1. can be drawn against respondent No. 1 because he -15). his statement to the police he had not mentioned the registration number or the name of its driver. He further admitted that the trolley was standing at the spot of accident; that there was no registration number on the said trolley; and that even the was not present at the spot. From the above facts, it is actually clear that there was no offending vehicle. As such, there is no question of rash and negligent driving of any offending admitted by PW-5 SI Surender Kumar, examination that at the time of moving; whereas the deceased was driving 5 has further admitted that several names and telephone numbers were written on the trolley including the name of one number, and that it can belong to It is also to be kept in mind that it is the own admission of eyewitness that he had reached the spot of accident 2 minutes after the occurrence. As such, the learned 3 was not an eyewitness as he had The learned Tribunal has also rightly observed tractor/offending vehicle is owned by ically lead to the inference that the trolley is also owned by respondent No. 1. Even no adverse inference because he is facing trial in the RISHU KATARIA 2025.04.05 16:21 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. FAO-4165 12. controvert the aforesaid facts and findings 13 impugned Award. The present appeal, being meritless, is 14. 04.04.2025 rishu 4165-2015 (O&M) -6- Learned counsel for the appellants is unable to dispute controvert the aforesaid facts and findings. In view of the above, I find no infirmity or illegality in the impugned Award. The present appeal, being meritless, is Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. .04.2025 Whether speaking/reasoned Whether Reportable Learned counsel for the appellants is unable to dispute or In view of the above, I find no infirmity or illegality in the impugned Award. The present appeal, being meritless, is dismissed. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. ( NIDHI GUPTA ) JUDGE Yes/No Yes/No RISHU KATARIA 2025.04.05 16:21 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment.