IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 235 Ram Parkash (since deceased) through LRs Heena Manchanda Ram Parkash (since deceased) through LRs Heena Manchanda and Harinder Singh Heena Manchanda and CORAM: Present:- NIDHI GUPTA, J. FAO-6306-2019 claimant Ram Parkash IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Ram Parkash (since deceased) through LRs Vs. Heena Manchanda and Others *** Ram Parkash (since deceased) through LRs Vs. Heena Manchanda and Others *** Harinder Singh Vs. Heena Manchanda and Others HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA Mr. Kartar Singh, Advocate for the appellant(s). *** NIDHI GUPTA, J. 2019: The present FAO-6306-2019 Ram Parkash (died during pendency of claim petition IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 26.03.2025 FAO-6306-2019 (O&M) ...Appellant(s) ...Respondent(s) FAO-6468-2019 (O&M) ...Appellant(s) FAO-6625-2019(O&M) ...Respondent(s) FAO-6625-2019(O&M) ...Appellant(s) ...Respondent(s) HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA , Advocate 2019 has been filed by the during pendency of claim petition) through SUNENA 2025.04.01 13:58 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document LRs against Award dated 04.07.2019 10.03.2015 filed by the appellant, was dismissed by the Claims Tribunal, petition was filed by the appellant seeking compensation 10 lacs for injuries suffered by 20.04.2014 on account of alleged rash and negligent driving of bearing registration No. offending vehicle), insured by respondent No.7 FAO-6468-2019 claimant Ram Parkash LRs against Award dated 04.07.2019 claim petition No.57 dated 10.03.2015 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act lacs for damage caused to Maruti Swift Dzire Car bearing registration No.HR-21D-6111 FAO-6625-2019: claimant Harinder Singh son of Ram Parkash 04.07.2019 passed by the learned Tribunal whereby dated 10.03.2015 Vehicles Act Award dated 04.07.2019 whereby filed by the appellant, was dismissed by the Claims Tribunal, Hisar (hereinafter referred to as “the Tribunal”) petition was filed by the appellant seeking compensation for injuries suffered by him in an accident that took place on on account of alleged rash and negligent driving of bearing registration No.HR-19D-6226 (here in after referred to as the offending vehicle), by Albel Singh (now deceased). The said Alto car was insured by respondent No.7 herein. 2019: The present FAO-6468-2019 has been filed by the Ram Parkash (died during pendency of claim petition Award dated 04.07.2019 passed by the claim petition No.57 dated 10.03.2015 filed by the claimant under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act for grant of compensation to the tune of for damage caused to Maruti Swift Dzire Car bearing registration 6111, an accident dated 20.4.2014, 2019: The present FAO-6625-2019 has been filed by the Harinder Singh son of Ram Parkash passed by the learned Tribunal whereby dated 10.03.2015 filed by the claimant under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act for grant of compensation to the tune of whereby claim petition No.56 dated filed by the appellant, was dismissed by the Motor Accident (hereinafter referred to as “the Tribunal”). The claim petition was filed by the appellant seeking compensationto the tune of ₹ in an accident that took place on on account of alleged rash and negligent driving of Alto car (here in after referred to as the by Albel Singh (now deceased). The said Alto car was 2019 has been filed by the pendency of claim petition) through passed by the ld. Tribunal whereby filed by the claimant under Section for grant of compensation to the tune of ₹4 for damage caused to Maruti Swift Dzire Car bearing registration an accident dated 20.4.2014, has been dismissed. 2019 has been filed by the Harinder Singh son of Ram Parkash against Award dated passed by the learned Tribunal whereby claim petition No.58 filed by the claimant under Section 166 of the Motor for grant of compensation to the tune of ₹5 lacs for injuries SUNENA 2025.04.01 13:58 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document suffered by the appellant Harinder Singh in accident dated 20.04.2014 due to rash and negligent driving of 2. common order as dated 04.07.2019 accident dated involved in these drawn from FAO 3. involved in the accident a) Swift Dzire car bearing registration No.HR Harinder Singh s/o Ram Parkash; b) Alto car No.HR c) Skoda car Manchanda/respondent no.1. 4. claim petition are that son Harinder Singh was coming in Swift Dzire Car bearing registration No. HR-21D-6111 from Hisar to Hansi, which was being driven by Harinder Singh (claimant o reached 2 KM bearing registration No. HR (now deceased suffered by the appellant Harinder Singh in accident dated 20.04.2014 due negligent driving of the offending vehicle All the above said appeals are being disposed of by this common order as they arise out of the same common impugned Award 04.07.2019, passed between same parties, in respect of the same accident dated 20.04.2014; and because the facts, issues and parties these cases are identical. For the sake of facility, facts a drawn from FAO-6306-2019. In the present case, the following involved in the accident dated 20.4.2014: - a) Swift Dzire car bearing registration No.HR Harinder Singh s/o Ram Parkash; No.HR-19D-6226 being driven by Albel Singh bearing registration No. DL-6CS Manchanda/respondent no.1. Brief facts of the case as stated by the claimants in the claim petition are thaton 20.04.2014, claimant Harinder Singh was coming in Swift Dzire Car bearing registration No. 6111 from Hisar to Hansi, which was being driven by Harinder claimant of third claim petition). At about 1.15 PM when they reached 2 KM before Hansi City on National Highway no. 10, then Alto car bearing registration No. HR-19D-6226/offending vehicle, deceased) Albel Singh in a rash and negligent manner came from suffered by the appellant Harinder Singh in accident dated 20.04.2014 due the offending vehicle, has been dismissed. the above said appeals are being disposed of by this arise out of the same common impugned Award between same parties, in respect of the same the facts, issues and parties For the sake of facility, facts are being the following 3 vehicles were a) Swift Dzire car bearing registration No.HR-21D-6111 being driven by 6226 being driven by Albel Singh; 6CS-9064 being driven by Heena as stated by the claimants in the claimant Ram Parkash along with his Harinder Singh was coming in Swift Dzire Car bearing registration No. 6111 from Hisar to Hansi, which was being driven by Harinder f third claim petition). At about 1.15 PM when they before Hansi City on National Highway no. 10, then Alto car /offending vehicle, being driven by Albel Singh in a rash and negligent manner came from SUNENA 2025.04.01 13:58 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document opposite side i.e. Delhi side and hit into the car being Singh, by taking the Alto car on wrong side Skoda car bearing registration No. DL respondent no. 1 Hisar side and also hit in the side, due to which Ram Parkash and Harinder suffered grievous injuries on their persons and Swift car of the Ram Parkash was also badly damaged. Immediately after the accident, Ram Hospital, where he remained admitted and 20.4.2014 to 27.4. 279, 337, 304 regarding this accident on t Manchanda. 5. Skoda car respectively; respondent No.3 is widow of deceased Albel; respondent No.4 is daughter No.6 is mother car. 6. dismissing the claim petition statement of the eyewitnessPW2 Harinder was driving the Swift Car bearing registration No.HR and at moderate speed opposite side i.e. Delhi side and hit into the car being by taking the Alto car on wrong side Skoda car bearing registration No. DL- respondent no. 1 in a rash and negligent manner came from back side i.e. Hisar side and also hit in the car being driven by side, due to which Ram Parkash and Harinder suffered grievous injuries on their persons and Swift car of the Ram Parkash was also badly damaged. Immediately after the accident, Ram Parkash Hospital, where he remained admitted and 20.4.2014 to 27.4.2014. An FIR No.262 dated 20.4.2014, under Sections 279, 337, 304-A and 427 of IPC was registered in Police Station City Hansi, regarding this accident on the statement of Respondents No.1 and 2are koda car respectively; respondent No.3 is widow of deceased Albel; respondent No.4 is daughter, respondent No.5 is son No.6 is mother of deceased Albel; and respondent No.7 is insurer of Alto Learned counsel for the appellant the claim petition the learned Tribunal has ignored the statement of the eyewitnessPW2 Harinder Singh, who was driving the Swift Car bearing registration No.HR and at moderate speed, when Alto Car/offending vehicle had hit the car of opposite side i.e. Delhi side and hit into the car being driven by Harinder by taking the Alto car on wrong side; whereas at the same time -6CS-9064 being driven by in a rash and negligent manner came from back side i.e. car being driven by Harinder Singh from back side, due to which Ram Parkash and Harinder suffered grievous injuries on their persons and Swift car of the Ram Parkash was also badly damaged. Parkash was shifted to Jindal Hospital, where he remained admitted and underwent treatment from FIR No.262 dated 20.4.2014, under Sections A and 427 of IPC was registered in Police Station City Hansi, he statement of respondent no. 1 Heena and 2are the driver and owner of koda car respectively; respondent No.3 is widow of deceased Albel; respondent No.5 is son, and respondent and respondent No.7 is insurer of Alto Learned counsel for the appellant(s)submits that in learned Tribunal has ignored the Singh, who had stated that he was driving the Swift Car bearing registration No.HR-21D-6111 properly , when Alto Car/offending vehicle had hit the car of SUNENA 2025.04.01 13:58 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document PW2 Harinder respondent No.1 in a rash and negligent m and also hit the car driven by Harinder due to which Ram Parkash and Harinder suffered grievous injuries. It is submitted that Hon’ble Supreme Court has held in numerous judgments that proceedings under the Motor Vehicles Act ar preponderance of probabilities. Learned Tribunal has medical bill of the injured Ram Parkash as well as Harinder. Ram Parkash and Harinder remained in the hospital for many d the accident. The learned MACT has not given any money for the bill to the appellants. Learned MACT has not considered the contributory negligence of driver of Alto car and driver of Skoda car. has wrongly believed the statement Manchanda as also ignored that FIR Sections 279, 337, 304 regarding the accident. be allowed. 7. counsel for the appellants. 8. perused the case file in great detail. 9. of the appellants PW2 Harinder. At the same time Skoda car which was being driven by respondent No.1 in a rash and negligent m hit the car driven by Harinder due to which Ram Parkash and Harinder suffered grievous injuries. It is submitted that Hon’ble Supreme Court has held in numerous judgments that proceedings under the Motor Vehicles Act are summary in nature and have to be decided on the preponderance of probabilities. Learned Tribunal has medical bill of the injured Ram Parkash as well as Harinder. Ram Parkash and Harinder remained in the hospital for many d the accident. The learned MACT has not given any money for the bill to the appellants. Learned MACT has not considered the contributory negligence of driver of Alto car and driver of Skoda car. has wrongly believed the statement of respondent No.1 Heena Manchanda as also ignored that FIR No.262 dated 20.04.2014 under Sections 279, 337, 304-A and 427 IPC was registered on the same day regarding the accident. It is accordingly prayed that the present appeals No other argument is made on behalf of learned counsel for the appellants. I have heard learned counsel for the appellants and perused the case file in great detail. I find no merit in the submissions advanced on behalf of the appellants as it has been irrefutably proven from the evidence on the same time Skoda car which was being driven by respondent No.1 in a rash and negligent manner, came from Hisar side hit the car driven by Harinder due to which Ram Parkash and Harinder suffered grievous injuries. It is submitted that Hon’ble Supreme Court has held in numerous judgments that proceedings under the Motor e summary in nature and have to be decided on the preponderance of probabilities. Learned Tribunal has further ignored the medical bill of the injured Ram Parkash as well as Harinder. The injured Ram Parkash and Harinder remained in the hospital for many days due to the accident. The learned MACT has not given any money for the bill to the appellants. Learned MACT has not considered the contributory negligence of driver of Alto car and driver of Skoda car. Learned Tribunal of respondent No.1 Heena No.262 dated 20.04.2014 under was registered on the same day It is accordingly prayed that the present appeals other argument is made on behalf of learned I have heard learned counsel for the appellants and find no merit in the submissions advanced on behalf een irrefutably proven from the evidence on SUNENA 2025.04.01 13:58 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document record that there was no negligence on part of the offending vehicle Alto Car No.HR RW1/respondent no.1had by Harinder when he was driving his Swift Dzire car at a speed of 115 KMPH; and when he tried to overtake another vehicle on NH his Dzire car into Alto car Singh which was coming from opposite side; reversed and hit into Skoda. Version of FIRNo.262 dated 20.04.2014 right to suggest that had (driver of Al lodged FIR against LRs of Albel Singh or Heena (respondent No.1) Tribunal further found that clean hands Singh had failed to disclose in his claim petition that FIR no.262 dated 20.4.2014 had been registered by Heena Manchanda. Moreover, version given by Harinder Singh regarding the with the pleading made in the Harinder Singh had stated that Skoda car had hit into his Dzire car; whereas in the claim petition, it had been pleaded that Alto car had hit into the Dzire car under:- record that there was no negligence on part of the offending vehicle Alto Car No.HR-19D-6226. In this regard, /respondent no.1had categorically stated that accident was caused arinder when he was driving his Swift Dzire car at a speed of 115 and when he tried to overtake another vehicle on NH his Dzire car into Alto car/alleged offending car, Singh which was coming from opposite side; reversed and hit into Skoda. Version of eyewitness No.262 dated 20.04.2014 was registered on her statement. right to suggest that had there been any (driver of Alto), or Heena (driver of Skoda) then Harinder would have lodged FIR against LRs of Albel Singh or Heena (respondent No.1) Tribunal further found that Harinder Singh had not come to the Court with as he had concealed material facts and as m Singh had failed to disclose in his claim petition that FIR no.262 dated 20.4.2014 had been registered by Heena Manchanda. Moreover, version given by Harinder Singh regarding the with the pleading made in the claim petition in as much as in his evidence. Harinder Singh had stated that Skoda car had hit into his Dzire car; whereas in the claim petition, it had been pleaded that Alto car had hit into the Dzire car. Relevant findings returned by learned Tribunal record that there was no negligence on part of the offending vehicle i.e. In this regard, the record reveals that categorically stated that accident was caused arinder when he was driving his Swift Dzire car at a speed of 115-120 and when he tried to overtake another vehicle on NH-10 he struck /alleged offending car, being driven by Albel Singh which was coming from opposite side; and after striking, Dzire car eyewitness RW1 is trustworthy as was registered on her statement. It is but any negligence on part of Albel Heena (driver of Skoda) then Harinder would have lodged FIR against LRs of Albel Singh or Heena (respondent No.1). Ld. Harinder Singh had not come to the Court with as he had concealed material facts and as much as Harinder Singh had failed to disclose in his claim petition that FIR no.262 dated 20.4.2014 had been registered by Heena Manchanda. Moreover, the version given by Harinder Singh regarding the accident was not consistent claim petition in as much as in his evidence. Harinder Singh had stated that Skoda car had hit into his Dzire car; whereas in the claim petition, it had been pleaded that Alto car had hit Relevant findings returned by learned Tribunal are as SUNENA 2025.04.01 13:58 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document for respondent no. 1. It is the plea “16. After perusing the evidence placed on record carefully this Tribunal concurs with the arguments advance by counsel for respondent no. 1. It is the plea accident has taken place because of rash and negligent driving of Alto car bearing No. HR Albel Singh, who expired in the accident and rash and negligent driven of Heena, who was driving Skoda car bearing registration No. DL-6CS-9064. But the petitioner Harinder when appeared in the witness box as PW2 has fairly to admit in his cross-examination that police never statement regarding the accident and he had no knowledge regarding FIR No. 262 whereas respondent no. 1 when appeared as RWI has categorically stated that accident was caused by petitioner Harinder when he was driving his Swift Dzire car at a speed of 115-120 KMPH and when he tried to overtake another vehicle on National Highway no. 10 near Hansi and struck his Dzire car into Alto car baring No. HR 19D-6226 being driven by Albel Singh which was coming from opposite side and after striking Dzire car circlely reversed a hit into her car which was coming at a distance of Meters from the car of RW1 and this version of RW1 appears to be trust-worthy and probable becaus accident called the police and police reached at the spot after 15-20 minutes and on her statement FIR Ex. R4 was recorded. Same version is recorded in FIR which has been reiterated by Heena in her statement while appearing as RW1. Responde no. 1 also faced trial though he was given benefit of doubt and was acquitted but petitioner Harinder in his claim petition and his father Ram Parkash in his claim petition for compensation on account of suffering of injuries and claim petition filed on account of damage to Dzire car has nowhere After perusing the evidence placed on record carefully this Tribunal concurs with the arguments advance by counsel for respondent no. 1. It is the plea of the petitioners that has taken place because of rash and negligent ng of Alto car bearing No. HR-19D-6226 being driven by Albel Singh, who expired in the accident and rash and negligent driven of Heena, who was driving Skoda car bearing 9064. But the petitioner Harinder box as PW2 has fairly to admit examination that police never recorded his statement regarding the accident and he had no knowledge regarding FIR No. 262 whereas respondent no. 1 when appeared as RWI has categorically stated that accident was caused by petitioner Harinder when he was driving his Swift 120 KMPH and when he tried to overtake another vehicle on National Highway no. 10 near Hansi and struck his Dzire car into Alto car baring No. HR- by Albel Singh which was coming from opposite side and after striking Dzire car circlely reversed and coming at a distance of 15-20 and this version of RW1 appears worthy and probable because RW1 after the accident called the police and police reached at the spot after 20 minutes and on her statement FIR Ex. R4 was recorded. Same version is recorded in FIR which has been reiterated by Heena in her statement while appearing as RW1. Respondent no. 1 also faced trial though he was given benefit of doubt and was acquitted but petitioner Harinder in his claim petition and his father Ram Parkash in his claim petition for compensation on account of suffering of injuries and claim account of damage to Dzire car has nowhere SUNENA 2025.04.01 13:58 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document disclosed that the FIR was lodged against Harinder in any police station. Had there been negligence on the part of Alto car driver i.e. Albel Singh and on the part of driver of Skoda car bearing registration No. DL his father Ram Parkash would have lodged FIR Albel Singh or Heena the respondent no. 1. 17. In the claim petition, it has been alleged by the petitioners that it was Albel Singh, who brought his Alto car bearin registration No. HR-19D-6226 on wrong side and after coming into wrong side hit Swif Dzire car bearing registration No. HR-21D-6111 being driven by Harinder Singh, who is also son of one of the petitioner namely Ram Parkash and Skoda car bearing registration no. DL Dzire car from behind, whereas Harinder when appeared into the witness box as PW2 has stated during his cross examination that firstly his car was hit by Skoda car from behind. Version of Harinder regarding accident consistent and has not come to the court with clean hands and has concealed material facts from the court. 18. Perusal of testimony of RW1 would also show that Harinder (petitioner of petition no. 3) while overtaking a car struck his Dzire car into Alto car bearing registration No. HR 19D-6226 which was coming from opposite side. Thus, there was no fault of Albel Singh, who was driving Alto car bearing registration no. HR-19D-6226 a side and it was Albel Singh, who lost his life in the accident in question because of rash and negligent driving of Harinder. Thus, the petitioners have failed to prove these issues and hence, these issues are decided against th disclosed that the FIR was lodged against Harinder in any police station. Had there been negligence on the part of Alto car driver i.e. Albel Singh and on the part of driver of Skoda DL-6CS-9064, then Harinder or his father Ram Parkash would have lodged FIR against Lrs of Heena the respondent no. 1. 17. In the claim petition, it has been alleged by the petitioners that it was Albel Singh, who brought his Alto car bearing 6226 on wrong side and after coming into wrong side hit Swif Dzire car bearing registration 6111 being driven by Harinder Singh, who is also son of one of the petitioner namely Ram Parkash and Skoda tion no. DL-6CS-9064 also hit his Swift Dzire car from behind, whereas Harinder when appeared into the witness box as PW2 has stated during his cross- examination that firstly his car was hit by Skoda car from behind. Version of Harinder regarding accident is not consistent and has not come to the court with clean hands and has concealed material facts from the court. 18. Perusal of testimony of RW1 would also show that of petition no. 3) while overtaking a car struck his Dzire car into Alto car bearing registration No. HR- 6226 which was coming from opposite side. Thus, there was no fault of Albel Singh, who was driving Alto car bearing 6226 and was coming on his proper side and it was Albel Singh, who lost his life in the accident in question because of rash and negligent driving of Harinder. Thus, the petitioners have failed to prove these issues and hence, these issues are decided against the petitioners.” SUNENA 2025.04.01 13:58 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 10. controvert or dispute appeals accordingly, stand 11. 26.03.2025 Sunena Whether speaking/reasoned: Whether reportable: Learned counsel for the appellants is unable to controvert or dispute the above said facts and findings. appeals accordingly, stand dismissed. Pending application(s) if any also stand(s) disposed of. Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether reportable: Yes/No Learned counsel for the appellants is unable to the above said facts and findings. All the above said Pending application(s) if any also stand(s) disposed of. (NIDHI GUPTA) JUDGE SUNENA 2025.04.01 13:58 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document