IOIN- 1-FAO FAO-7803 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 235 Akram Hasan Mohd. and others CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA Present: - NIDHI GUPTA, J. (ORAL) 1. for completion of service shows that since inception of the appeal, hearing 03 times, out of which on 02 dates of hearing i.e. on 21.12.2015 and 04.011.2024 before the Daily Lok Adalat, the appellant had gone un-represented. itself. 2. against the dismissal of his claim petition bearing MACT No. dated 28.01.2014 1988, by the Vide impugned Award dated the claimant has been unable to vehicle bearing regist establish the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by FAO-7803-2015 in/and 7803-2015 (O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH IOIN FAO Date of Decision: Versus Hasan Mohd. and others CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA None. NIDHI GUPTA, J. (ORAL) The present appeal has been listed under the for completion of service of respondent No. 1 shows that since inception of the appeal, hearing 03 times, out of which on 02 dates of hearing i.e. on 21.12.2015 and 04.011.2024 before the Daily Lok Adalat, the appellant had gone represented. As such, the main appeal is taken up for hearing today The present appeal has been filed by the against the dismissal of his claim petition bearing MACT No. 28.01.2014, filed under Section 166 by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal ide impugned Award dated 28.01.2014, taking into account the fact that the claimant has been unable to prove the involvement of offending vehicle bearing registration No. RJ-29-GA establish the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH IOIN-1-FAO-7803-2015 in/and FAO-7803-2015 (O&M) Date of Decision: 05.08.2025 .… Appellant .... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA The present appeal has been listed under the IOIN Category of respondent No. 1. However, order-sheet shows that since inception of the appeal, the same has been listed for hearing 03 times, out of which on 02 dates of hearing i.e. on 21.12.2015 and 04.011.2024 before the Daily Lok Adalat, the appellant had gone e main appeal is taken up for hearing today The present appeal has been filed by the injured-claimant against the dismissal of his claim petition bearing MACT No. 100 of 2012 , filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Nuh at Mewat. , taking into account the fact that prove the involvement of offending GA-1137; and also failed to establish the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by sheet the same has been listed for hearing 03 times, out of which on 02 dates of hearing i.e. on 21.12.2015 and 04.011.2024 before the Daily Lok Adalat, the appellant had gone e main appeal is taken up for hearing today claimant of the Motor Vehicles Act, . , taking into account the fact that prove the involvement of offending establish the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by RISHU KATARIA 2025.08.06 18:31 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. IOIN- 1-FAO FAO-7803 respondent No. 1 Award has observed as under: 3. co-ordinate Bench of this under:- 4. Bench No. 5 for exploring the possibility of the parties. However, vide order dated remanded back to this Court as of claim petition. 5. and 6479 dated for the appellant to supply fresh/correct FAO-7803-2015 in/and 7803-2015 (O&M) respondent No. 1. The learned Tribunal, in para No. 13 of the impugned Award has observed as under:- “13. In view of my discussion, I am of the opinion that it is fully proved that the offending vehicle was not involved in the accident causing any injury and respondent no. 1 was not rash and negligent for the same. Mere FIR, framing of charge and even judgment criminal court is not binding of tribunal. The onus of proving negligence is always upon the claimant that they have to discharge it before the tribunal. Reliance has place on the authority Ram Karan Vs. Zile Singh (supra). judgment referred above Ravi Vs. Badrinarayan (supra), is held that claimant/petitioner has failed to prove the involvement of offending vehicle in the alleged accident. It has not been proved that alleged injury caused to the petitioner by offending vehicle. Hence, issue no. 1 is decided against the petitioner.” The matter pertains to the year ordinate Bench of this vide order dated “C.M No. 24472 C.II of 2015 This is an application for condonation of delay of 540 days in filing the appeal. For the reasons recorded, the application is allowed and delay of in case this appeal is allowed, the appellant would not be entitled for interest for these days. FAO-4690-2016 This appeal has been filed against the dismissal of the claim petition. Admitted.” Thereafter, the matter was listed before the Daily Lok Adalat Bench No. 5 for exploring the possibility of the parties. However, vide order dated remanded back to this Court as, the present appeal is against the dismissal of claim petition. As per office report dated 29.03.2025 and 6479 dated 08.02.2022 and 08.05.2024, respectively, learned counsel for the appellant to supply fresh/correct address(s) o -2- in para No. 13 of the impugned In view of my discussion, I am of the opinion that it is fully proved that the offending vehicle was not involved in the accident causing any injury and respondent no. 1 was not rash and negligent for the same. Mere FIR, framing of of conviction or acquittal of criminal court is not binding of tribunal. The onus of proving negligence is always upon the claimant that they have to discharge it before the tribunal. Reliance has place on the Ram Karan Vs. Zile Singh (supra). In view of the Ravi Vs. Badrinarayan (supra), it is held that claimant/petitioner has failed to prove the involvement of offending vehicle in the alleged accident. It has not been proved that alleged injury caused to the y offending vehicle. Hence, issue no. 1 is decided the year 2015 and was admitted by a vide order dated 02.05.2016, which reads as for condonation of delay of 540 For the reasons recorded, the application is allowed and delay of 540 days is condoned but in case this appeal is allowed, the appellant would not be entitled for interest for these days. This appeal has been filed against the dismissal of the was listed before the Daily Lok Adalat Bench No. 5 for exploring the possibility of amicable settlement between the parties. However, vide order dated 04.11.2024, the matter was the present appeal is against the dismissal 29.03.2025, vide letter Nos. 1062 08.02.2022 and 08.05.2024, respectively, learned counsel address(s) of respondent No. 1. in para No. 13 of the impugned In view of my discussion, I am of the opinion that it is fully proved that the offending vehicle was not involved in the accident causing any injury and respondent no. 1 was not rash and negligent for the same. Mere FIR, framing of of conviction or acquittal of criminal court is not binding of tribunal. The onus of proving negligence is always upon the claimant that they have to discharge it before the tribunal. Reliance has place on the n view of the it is held that claimant/petitioner has failed to prove the involvement of offending vehicle in the alleged accident. It has not been proved that alleged injury caused to the y offending vehicle. Hence, issue no. 1 is decided and was admitted by a , which reads as for condonation of delay of 540 For the reasons recorded, the but in case this appeal is allowed, the appellant would not be This appeal has been filed against the dismissal of the was listed before the Daily Lok Adalat amicable settlement between , the matter was the present appeal is against the dismissal 1062 08.02.2022 and 08.05.2024, respectively, learned counsel f respondent No. 1. RISHU KATARIA 2025.08.06 18:31 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. IOIN- 1-FAO FAO-7803 However, learned counsel for the appellant has not take effecting service upon respondent No. 1. dated 04.04.2025 counsel for respondent No. informed about the date fixed through e appearance on 6. filing of the instant appeal on un-represented. T his pursuit of the present litigation. It is to be appreciate valuable public time of the Court has been expended in affording opportunities to the appellant in the interest of justice. On the other hand, the appellant clear that neither the app pursuing the present matter. interfere in the impugned Award. 7. stand disposed of. 05.08.2025 rishu FAO-7803-2015 in/and 7803-2015 (O&M) owever, learned counsel for the appellant has not take effecting service upon respondent No. 1. 04.04.2025, learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned counsel for respondent No. 3-Insurance Company have been duly informed about the date fixed through e-mail. appearance on behalf of the appellant. From the above facts it is clear that right since the inception/ filing of the instant appeal on 19.10.2015 represented. The appellant has exhibited an utterly casual attitude in pursuit of the present litigation. It is to be appreciate valuable public time of the Court has been expended in affording opportunities to the appellant in the interest of justice. On the other hand, appellant has adopted an utterly casual and careless approach. It is clear that neither the appellant nor his counsel pursuing the present matter. Even on merits no ground is made out to interfere in the impugned Award. Thus, the present appeal is IOIN as well as pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. 05.08.2025 Whether speaking/reasoned Whether Reportable -3- owever, learned counsel for the appellant has not taken any steps for effecting service upon respondent No. 1. Further, as per office report , learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned Insurance Company have been duly mail. However, none has put in it is clear that right since the inception/ 19.10.2015, the appellant had gone exhibited an utterly casual attitude in pursuit of the present litigation. It is to be appreciated that very valuable public time of the Court has been expended in affording opportunities to the appellant in the interest of justice. On the other hand, adopted an utterly casual and careless approach. It is counsel is seriously interested in Even on merits no ground is made out to the present appeal is dismissed. ending application(s), if any, shall also ( NIDHI GUPTA ) JUDGE Yes/No Yes/No any steps for , learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned Insurance Company have been duly However, none has put in , the appellant had gone exhibited an utterly casual attitude in d that very valuable public time of the Court has been expended in affording opportunities to the appellant in the interest of justice. On the other hand, adopted an utterly casual and careless approach. It is seriously interested in Even on merits no ground is made out to RISHU KATARIA 2025.08.06 18:31 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment.