FAO-9856 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 221 Manish Kumar Devi Dayal CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA Present: - NIDHI GUPTA, J. CM-27248 Limitation Act, 1963 is for condonation of delay of accompanying appeal. by an affidavit, the same is accompanying appeal is condoned. FAO-9856 1. against the dated 21.05.2012 1988, by the 9856-2014 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Manish Kumar Versus Devi Dayal and others CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA Mr. JS Mehndiratta, Advocate for the appellant. None for respondents No. 1 and 2. Mr. Pardeep Kumar, Advocate for respondent No. 3-Insurance Company. GUPTA, J. 27248-CII-2014 Prayer in this application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 is for condonation of delay of 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. 9856-2014 The present appeal has been filed by the against the dismissal of his claim petition bearing MACT No. 71 of 2012 21.05.2012, filed under Section 166 by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO-9856-2014 (O&M) Date of Decision: 24.07.2025 .…Appellant ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA , Advocate for the appellant. respondents No. 1 and 2. Mr. Pardeep Kumar, Advocate Insurance Company. Prayer in this application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 is for condonation of delay of 149 days in filing the For the reasons stated in the application which is supported and delay of 149 days in filing the The present appeal has been filed by the injured-claimant dismissal of his claim petition bearing MACT No. 71 of 2012 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Yamuna Nagar at Prayer in this application filed under Section 5 of the days in filing the For the reasons stated in the application which is supported days in filing the claimant dismissal of his claim petition bearing MACT No. 71 of 2012 of the Motor Vehicles Act, , Yamuna Nagar at RISHU KATARIA 2025.07.28 18:33 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. FAO-9856 Jagadhri (hereinafter ‘the 07.02.2014 2. petition are Kharwan on a about 7 pm when he reached near Pali Ka Bhatha in the area of Village Kharwan, then respondent No.1 while driving tractor No.HR (hereinafter referred negligence manner and also at a very high speed came from t Village Kharwan and hit into motorcycle the accident, the claimant sustained serious injuries and remained admitted in Kohli Hospital from 14.10.2011 to 25.10.2011 admitted in Aastha 26.02.2012. FIR No. 121 under section 279, 337, 338 IPC was registered in respect of the accident in question in police station Sadar, Jagadhri on 19.10.2011. The claimant averred that the injuries sustained by him have made him permanently disabled ₹5,00,000/- caused to his driven by respondent No. 1 Sukhbir Singh; and insured by respondent No. 3 3. evidence adduced bef injured-claimant had failed to prove the involvement of the alleged offending vehicle in the accident in question. 9856-2014 (O&M) -2- (hereinafter ‘the ld. Tribunal’) 07.02.2014. Brief facts of the case as set out by the appellant petition are that on 14.10.2011 the claimant was returning to his village Kharwan on a motorcycle bearing registration No. HR pm when he reached near Pali Ka Bhatha in the area of Village Kharwan, then respondent No.1 while driving tractor No.HR (hereinafter referred to as ‘the offending vehicle negligence manner and also at a very high speed came from t Village Kharwan and hit into motorcycle the accident, the claimant sustained serious injuries and remained admitted in Kohli Hospital from 14.10.2011 to 25.10.2011 admitted in Aastha Hospital on 19.02.2012 and was discharged on 26.02.2012. FIR No. 121 under section 279, 337, 338 IPC was registered in respect of the accident in question in police station Sadar, Jagadhri on 19.10.2011. The claimant averred that the injuries sustained by him have him permanently disabled. Thus, - on account of the injuries suffered by him as well as damage caused to his motorcycle. The offending vehicle is stated to have been driven by respondent No. 1-Devi Dayal; owned by respondent No. 2 Sukhbir Singh; and insured by respondent No. 3 The learned Tribunal on the basis of the pleadings and evidence adduced before it, came to the conclusion that claimant had failed to prove the involvement of the alleged offending vehicle in the accident in question. Tribunal’) vide impugned Award dated Brief facts of the case as set out by the appellant in the claim that on 14.10.2011 the claimant was returning to his village bearing registration No. HR-02-W-8503. At pm when he reached near Pali Ka Bhatha in the area of Village Kharwan, then respondent No.1 while driving tractor No.HR-71-A-5206 offending vehicle’) in a rash and negligence manner and also at a very high speed came from the side of Village Kharwan and hit into motorcycle of the appellant. As a result of the accident, the claimant sustained serious injuries and remained admitted in Kohli Hospital from 14.10.2011 to 25.10.2011; and was again .02.2012 and was discharged on 26.02.2012. FIR No. 121 under section 279, 337, 338 IPC was registered in respect of the accident in question in police station Sadar, Jagadhri on 19.10.2011. The claimant averred that the injuries sustained by him have . Thus, he sought compensation of on account of the injuries suffered by him as well as damage The offending vehicle is stated to have been Devi Dayal; owned by respondent No. 2- Sukhbir Singh; and insured by respondent No. 3-Insurance Company. earned Tribunal on the basis of the pleadings and ore it, came to the conclusion that the appellant- claimant had failed to prove the involvement of the alleged offending vehicle in the accident in question. vide impugned Award dated in the claim that on 14.10.2011 the claimant was returning to his village 8503. At pm when he reached near Pali Ka Bhatha in the area of Village 5206 ) in a rash and he side of . As a result of the accident, the claimant sustained serious injuries and remained and was again .02.2012 and was discharged on 26.02.2012. FIR No. 121 under section 279, 337, 338 IPC was registered in respect of the accident in question in police station Sadar, Jagadhri on 19.10.2011. The claimant averred that the injuries sustained by him have on account of the injuries suffered by him as well as damage The offending vehicle is stated to have been earned Tribunal on the basis of the pleadings and claimant had failed to prove the involvement of the alleged RISHU KATARIA 2025.07.28 18:33 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. FAO-9856 4. appellant that petition of the appellant as, the appeared as PW suffered multiple injuries in the proved on record that the appellant had remained hospitalized from 14.10.2011 to 25.10.2011; and thereafter, from 19.02.2012 to 26.02.2012. The appellant had suffered fractures of right thigh and knee joint and was operated upon by the doctor disability to the extent of 40% in the accident in question. submitted that the claim petition filed by the appellant could not have been dismissed. 5. as PW-9; and Ram Kumar PW-10. Even FIR No. 121 dated 338 IPC was registered against respondent No. 1 on the basis of statement of eye-witness accident in question was only required to prove probabilities. As such, the Tribunal was in patent error in dismissin claim petition. 6. dismissed the there was delay of 05 days in registration of the FIR. submitted that educated person 9856-2014 (O&M) -3- It is, inter alia, submitted by le that the learned Tribunal has of the appellant as, the doctors who attended upon the appellant appeared as PW-1 and PW-4, and proved on record multiple injuries in the accident dated proved on record that the appellant had remained hospitalized from 14.10.2011 to 25.10.2011; and thereafter, from 19.02.2012 to 26.02.2012. The appellant had suffered fractures of right thigh and knee joint and was operated upon by the doctors. The appellant had disability to the extent of 40% in the accident in question. submitted that the claim petition filed by the appellant could not have been dismissed. It is further submitted that the and Ram Kumar eyewitness stepped into the witness 10. Even FIR No. 121 dated 19.10.2011 under Section 279, 337 and 338 IPC was registered against respondent No. 1 on the basis of statement witness Ram Kumar (PW-10). Therefore, occurrence of the accident in question also stood proved on record. only required to prove his case on the preponderance of the probabilities. As such, the Tribunal was in patent error in dismissin claim petition. It is further submitted that the dismissed the claim petition of the appellant on the there was delay of 05 days in registration of the FIR. submitted that PW-10 Ram Kumar, who got lodged the educated person and was working as a labourer. submitted by learned counsel for the s erred in dismissing the claim doctors who attended upon the appellant and proved on record that the appellant had accident dated 14.10.2011. It was also proved on record that the appellant had remained hospitalized from 14.10.2011 to 25.10.2011; and thereafter, from 19.02.2012 to 26.02.2012. The appellant had suffered fractures of right thigh and knee joint and was s. The appellant had even suffered permanent disability to the extent of 40% in the accident in question. It is, therefore, submitted that the claim petition filed by the appellant could not have appellant himself had appeared stepped into the witness-box as 011 under Section 279, 337 and 338 IPC was registered against respondent No. 1 on the basis of statement 10). Therefore, occurrence of the stood proved on record. Moreover, the appellant case on the preponderance of the probabilities. As such, the Tribunal was in patent error in dismissing the submitted that the learned Tribunal had of the appellant on the flimsy premise that there was delay of 05 days in registration of the FIR. In this regard, it is got lodged the FIR was not an working as a labourer. As such, it was difficult arned counsel for the in dismissing the claim doctors who attended upon the appellant the appellant had . It was also proved on record that the appellant had remained hospitalized from 14.10.2011 to 25.10.2011; and thereafter, from 19.02.2012 to 26.02.2012. The appellant had suffered fractures of right thigh and knee joint and was suffered permanent It is, therefore, submitted that the claim petition filed by the appellant could not have nt himself had appeared box as 011 under Section 279, 337 and 338 IPC was registered against respondent No. 1 on the basis of statement 10). Therefore, occurrence of the appellant case on the preponderance of the g the learned Tribunal had flimsy premise that In this regard, it is FIR was not an As such, it was difficult RISHU KATARIA 2025.07.28 18:33 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. FAO-9856 for him to approach the police and get the FIR registered. This fact ought to have been appreciated by the learned Tribunal. However, the same has been misconstrued. allowed; and the impugned Award be set 7. driver and owner, respectively; and learned counsel for respondent No. Insurance Company of the appellant and submit that error whatsoever. It is submitted that the alleged offending vehicle has been falsely implicated in the accident in question. prayed that the present appeal be dismissed. 8. heard learned counsel 9. appellant. The facts here-in-above. However, a complete perusal of the facts establishes that appellant-injured had failed to prove the involvement of the alleged offending vehicle bearing registration No. in question alleged eye of the accident. No cogent the appellant nor the eyewitness FIR. 10. Kumar has HR-02-J-0394 make Swaraj. 9856-2014 (O&M) -4- for him to approach the police and get the FIR registered. This fact ought to have been appreciated by the learned Tribunal. However, the same has been misconstrued. It is accordingly prayed that the present appeal be allowed; and the impugned Award be set aside. Per Contra, learned counsel for respondent driver and owner, respectively; and learned counsel for respondent No. Company vehemently dispute the of the appellant and submit that the impugn error whatsoever. It is submitted that the alleged offending vehicle has been falsely implicated in the accident in question. prayed that the present appeal be dismissed. No other argument is raised on behalf of the heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file in I find no merit in the arguments advanced on behalf of the The facts pleaded by the appellant have already been noticed above. However, a complete perusal of the facts establishes that injured had failed to prove the involvement of the alleged offending vehicle bearing registration No. in question that occurred on 14.10.2011. The FIR was lodged by the alleged eye-witness PW-10 Ram Kumar on 19.10.2011 i.e. after 05 days of the accident. No cogent or plausible reasons have been the appellant nor the eyewitness explaining this More importantly, in the FIR s mentioned the involvement of tractor bearing registration No. 0394 make Swaraj. Whereas, in the supplementary statement for him to approach the police and get the FIR registered. This fact ought to have been appreciated by the learned Tribunal. However, the same has It is accordingly prayed that the present appeal be aside. learned counsel for respondents No. 1 and 2/ driver and owner, respectively; and learned counsel for respondent No. 3- vehemently dispute the submissions made on behalf impugned Award suffers from no error whatsoever. It is submitted that the alleged offending vehicle has been falsely implicated in the accident in question. It is accordingly prayed that the present appeal be dismissed. No other argument is raised on behalf of the parties. I have and perused the case file in detail. I find no merit in the arguments advanced on behalf of the pleaded by the appellant have already been noticed above. However, a complete perusal of the facts establishes that injured had failed to prove the involvement of the alleged offending vehicle bearing registration No. HR-71-A-5206 in the accident occurred on 14.10.2011. The FIR was lodged by the 10 Ram Kumar on 19.10.2011 i.e. after 05 days or plausible reasons have been given neither by explaining this delay in registration of the in the FIR the complainant, PW-10 Ram mentioned the involvement of tractor bearing registration No. Whereas, in the supplementary statement for him to approach the police and get the FIR registered. This fact ought to have been appreciated by the learned Tribunal. However, the same has It is accordingly prayed that the present appeal be behalf ed Award suffers from no error whatsoever. It is submitted that the alleged offending vehicle has It is accordingly I have I find no merit in the arguments advanced on behalf of the pleaded by the appellant have already been noticed above. However, a complete perusal of the facts establishes that injured had failed to prove the involvement of the alleged accident occurred on 14.10.2011. The FIR was lodged by the 10 Ram Kumar on 19.10.2011 i.e. after 05 days given neither by delay in registration of the 10 Ram mentioned the involvement of tractor bearing registration No. RISHU KATARIA 2025.07.28 18:33 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. FAO-9856 recorded by the FIR, the involvement of registration No. record to show as to how the present offending vehicle came to be involved in the alleged accident. eyewitness registration number of the offending vehicle as HR explanation or reason is for coming from the appellant to explain this change of stance. T put forth by the appellant. 11. was upon investigation that it was found that the offending vehicle was involved in the accident. In this regard, has placed reliance upon the testimony of PW However, all and inquiry and also on the statements of witnesses, tractor bearing registration No. HR offending vehicle’ mentioned. the present offending vehicle HR accident. W mentioned in his complaint that 0394 make Swar contradictions and loopholes in the story put forth by the appellant would lead to the irresistible conclusion that the claim petition was filed by the appellant in collusion with the driver and owner 9856-2014 (O&M) -5- ed by the appellant before the police, one month after registration of the involvement of the present offending vehicle bearing registration No. HR-71-A-5206 is mentioned. There is no explanation to show as to how the present offending vehicle came to be involved in the alleged accident. Even further PW eyewitness in his affidavit tendered into evidence registration number of the offending vehicle as HR explanation or reason is for coming from the appellant to explain this change of stance. Therefore, a huge shadow of doubt put forth by the appellant. It has been sought to be contended by the appellant that it investigation that it was found that the offending vehicle was involved in the accident. In this regard, learned counsel for the appellant has placed reliance upon the testimony of PW However, all that has been stated by this witness i and inquiry and also on the statements of witnesses, tractor bearing registration No. HR-71-A-5206 make Farm Track was impleaded as offending vehicle’. No details of the investigation undertaken are mentioned. Nothing has been stated as to what led PW the present offending vehicle HR-71-A . Whereas PW-10 Ram Kumar mentioned in his complaint that tractor bearing registration No. HR 0394 make Swaraj was involved. Therefore, there are contradictions and loopholes in the story put forth by the appellant would lead to the irresistible conclusion that the claim petition was filed by the appellant in collusion with the driver and owner , one month after registration of the present offending vehicle bearing is mentioned. There is no explanation on to show as to how the present offending vehicle came to be Even further PW-10 Ram Kumar, tendered into evidence has mentioned the registration number of the offending vehicle as HR-71-A-7206. No explanation or reason is for coming from the appellant to explain this herefore, a huge shadow of doubt is cast on the story It has been sought to be contended by the appellant that it investigation that it was found that the offending vehicle was learned counsel for the appellant has placed reliance upon the testimony of PW-6 ASI Parveen Kumar. that has been stated by this witness is that ‘after verification and inquiry and also on the statements of witnesses, tractor bearing 5206 make Farm Track was impleaded as No details of the investigation undertaken are ated as to what led PW-6 to conclude that A-5206 was involved in the 10 Ram Kumar eye witness has categorically tractor bearing registration No. HR-02-J- Therefore, there are numerous contradictions and loopholes in the story put forth by the appellant; which would lead to the irresistible conclusion that the claim petition was filed by the appellant in collusion with the driver and owner. Moreover, it has , one month after registration of the present offending vehicle bearing on to show as to how the present offending vehicle came to be 10 Ram Kumar, as mentioned the o explanation or reason is for coming from the appellant to explain this on the story It has been sought to be contended by the appellant that it investigation that it was found that the offending vehicle was learned counsel for the appellant 6 ASI Parveen Kumar. ‘after verification and inquiry and also on the statements of witnesses, tractor bearing 5206 make Farm Track was impleaded as No details of the investigation undertaken are 6 to conclude that 5206 was involved in the has categorically numerous ; which would lead to the irresistible conclusion that the claim petition was filed . Moreover, it has RISHU KATARIA 2025.07.28 18:33 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. FAO-9856 been admitted by learned counsel for the appellant respondent No. criminal trial. tendered into evidence has been falsely implicated in the present case. 12. bearing registration No. involved in claimant for this is that which is 1½ objection is accepted not indicate vehicle was involved in any accident. involvement of the present offending in the accident in question 13. 14. 24.07.2025 rishu 9856-2014 (O&M) -6- been admitted by learned counsel for the appellant respondent No. 1/driver of the offending vehicle has been acquitted in the criminal trial. Even respondent No. 2/owner of the offending vehicle had into evidence his affidavit Ex. R has been falsely implicated in the present case. Furthermore, the Mechanical Report (Ex. P bearing registration No. HR-71-A-5206 does not involved in any accident recently. The purported claimant for this is that the said Mechanical Report 1½ months after the accident. However, even if the said objection is accepted even then, the Mechanical Report (Ex. P indicate any such damage which would vehicle was involved in any accident. Thus, involvement of the present offending in the accident in question 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 been admitted by learned counsel for the appellant-claimant that /driver of the offending vehicle has been acquitted in the respondent No. 2/owner of the offending vehicle had is affidavit Ex. R-1 to the effect that his tractor has been falsely implicated in the present case. Furthermore, the Mechanical Report (Ex. P-18) of tractor does not indicate that it has been purported explanation given by the Mechanical Report is dated 01.12.2011 after the accident. However, even if the said the Mechanical Report (Ex. P-18) does any such damage which would show that the offending Thus, the appellant could not prove involvement of the present offending in the accident in question. of the above, present appeal is hereby dismissed. Pending application(s), if any also stand(s) disposed of. ( NIDHI GUPTA ) JUDGE Yes/No Yes/No claimant that /driver of the offending vehicle has been acquitted in the respondent No. 2/owner of the offending vehicle had 1 to the effect that his tractor 18) of tractor that it has been by the after the accident. However, even if the said 18) does show that the offending the appellant could not prove RISHU KATARIA 2025.07.28 18:33 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment.