( 2026:HHC:6531 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA FAO No. 82 of 2016 Reserved on: 06.03.2026 Date of decision: 09.03.2026 ________________________________________________ Neelam Rani & Ors. .....Appellants Versus Ramesh Chand & Anr. …..Respondents ________________________________________________ Coram The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sushil Kukreja, Judge. 1 Whether approved for reporting? For the appellants: Mr. Raman Sethi, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Raju Ram Rahi, Advocate, for respondent No. 1. Mr. Deepak Bhasin, Senior Advocate with Ms. Shruti Dubey, Advocate, for respondent No. 2. Sushil Kukreja, Judge The instant appeal has been preferred by the appellants, who were the petitioners before the learned Court below, against award dated 01.09.2015, passed by learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (IV), Shimla, H.P., (hereinafter referred to as “the learned Tribunal below”), in MAC Petition RBT No. 6-S/2 of 2014/11, whereby the petition filed by the petitioners was dismissed. 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? ( 2026:HHC:6531 ) 2. The brief facts of the case are that Raj Kumar Gill (since deceased) was a JBT Teacher and was employed as Head Teacher in Government Primary School, Kanlog. On 07.06.2008, at about 9:00 P.M., while the deceased was coming home from Tara Devi, he was hit from behind by car bearing registration No. HP-03-2822, being driven by respondent No. 1, Ramesh Chand. The sudden hitting of the vehicle caused vomiting and a considerable portion of vomited food entered the breathing pipe of the deceased and choked the same, which resulted into the death of the deceased. According to the petitioners, accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of respondent No. 1, Ramesh Chand. As per the averments made in the claim petition, at the time of accident, the deceased was 39 years of age and was drawing monthly salary of Rs. 17,797/- per month, as such, compensation of Rs. 50,00,000/- was claimed. 3. Respondent No. 1, by filing reply, contested the petition and took preliminary objections qua maintainability, estoppel and that the petitioners have not come to the Court with clean hands. On merits, it has been denied that vehicle 2 ( 2026:HHC:6531 ) bearing registration No. HP-03-2822 had ever hit the deceased and the plea taken by the petitioners is an afterthought to falsely implicate him, as is evident from forensic as well as post mortem report. 4. Respondent No. 2/Insurance Company in its reply took preliminary objections qua maintainability, that the vehicle was not having valid registration certificate, that the driver was not having a valid driving licence, estoppel and that the petitioners have not come to the Court with clean hands. On merits, the occupation and income of the deceased was denied. It has been stated that deceased died due to consumption of excessive alcohol and not by accident. 5. On pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed on 30.05.2012:- “1. Whether Raj Kumar Gill died due to rash and negligent driving of driver of Car No. HP-03-2822 on 7.6.2008 at Ghora Chowki at 9:15 P.M., as alleged? OPP 2. If issue No. 1 is proved in affirmative, whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation to the tune of Rs. 50 Lacs, as alleged OPP 3. Whether the petition is not maintainable? OPR 4. Whether respondent No. 1 was not having valid and effective driving licence on 7.6.2008? OPR-2 5. Whether the vehicle in question was plied in violation to the policy conditions? OPR-2 3 ( 2026:HHC:6531 ) 6. Whether the petitioners have no cause of action? OPR-2 7. Relief.” 6. After the parties led evidence and after hearing the learned Counsel for the parties, the petition was dismissed. 7. Feeling dissatisfied, the petitioners preferred the instant appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, (for short “MV Act”) for quashing and setting aside the impugned award, dated 01.09.2015. 8. Learned counsel for the appellants contended that the learned Tribunal below has failed to appreciate the statement of eye witness, Sh. Vir Singh, who stepped into the witness box as PW-4 and has categorically stated in his examination-in-chief that respondent No. 1 after overtaking his vehicle had hit the deceased from behind. He also contended that the learned Tribunal below has gravely erred in relying upon the report of FSL in absence of any link evidence to suggest that this FSL report pertains to samples of blood or viscera of the deceased. Further, there is nothing on record to establish that blood samples analyzed was of the deceased. Therefore, he prayed that the impugned award dated 01.09.2015 be set aside by accepting the 4 ( 2026:HHC:6531 ) present appeal. 9. Per Contra, the learned Counsel for respondents contended that the Tribunal below has committed no error while dismissing the claim petition and the present appeal also deserves to be dismissed. 10. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellants, learned counsel for respondents No. 1 & 2, and carefully examined the entire record. 11. The moot question, which arises for consideration before this Court is as to whether Raj Kumar Gill died due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the car bearing registration No. HP-03-2822 on 07.06.2008. 12. In order to prove the case, one of the petitioners Smt. Neelam Rani, who is widow of the deceased, has appeared in the witness box as PW-2 and deposed that on 07.06.2008 at about 8:30 P.M., her husband had gone for walk and after some time, she received a telephonic call that he was hit by a Maruti car and had been taken to hospital, where he was declared brought dead. 13. In support of their case, the petitioners have examined one Vir Singh, who appeared in the witness box as 5 ( 2026:HHC:6531 ) PW-4 and deposed that on 07.06.2008, when he was coming from Chandigarh to Shimla, then, at place Ghora Chowki, one car bearing registration No. HP-03-2822 blew horn, to which he gave pass and thereafter the said car collided with one person. According to this witness, the driver of said car was driving the car in a rash and negligent manner. 14. PW-5, HC Nikka Ram, proved on record FIR No. 143/2008 dated 08.06.2008. The petitioners have also examined Dr. Sangeet Dhillon, as PW-1, who conducted the autopsy on the dead body of the deceased and proved the postmortem report. 15. I have closely scrutinized the entire evidence on record and from the close scrutiny thereof, I am of the firm opinion that the petitioners have failed to prove that Raj Kumar Gill died due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the car bearing registration No. HP-03-2822 on 07.06.2008. 16. Admittedly, FIR No. 143/2008 dated 08.06.2008 under Sections 279 & 304-A of IPC was registered with Police Station West Shimla, on the basis of statement of one Kamal Kant, who was the neighbor of the deceased. 6 ( 2026:HHC:6531 ) However, he has not been examined by the petitioners for the reasons best known to them. From the contents of the FIR, it is clear that complainant narrated to the police that on 07.06.2008, at about 9:15 P.M., when he alighted from HRTC bus near Ghora Chowki, then, he found that his neighbor i.e. Raj Kumar Gill, was lying on the road and there was one Maruti car standing nearby bearing registration No. HP-03- 2622. However, he had nowhere stated that the deceased had died, as he was hit by the said Maruti car. The contents of said FIR nowhere depicts that the deceased was either hit by or struck against the Maruti car. The only averment in the FIR is that there was one car bearing registration No. HP-03- 2622, which was standing nearby, but this fact would not be sufficient to connect the said car with the death of the deceased on account of rashness and negligence on the part of its driver. From the perusal of the record, it is also clear that on the basis of statement of the complainant, the FIR was cancelled by order dated 06.06.2009 passed by learned JMIC, Shimla after recording its satisfaction. Even according to the Investigating Officer, who appeared in the witness box as RW-2, there was no accident found to have been caused 7 ( 2026:HHC:6531 ) on the relevant date. 17. Although, the petitioners have examined PW-4, Vir Singh, who deposed that on 07.06.2008, when he was coming from Chandigarh to Shimla, then, at place Ghora Chowki, one car bearing registration No. HP-03-2822 blew horn, to which, he gave pass and thereafter, the said Maruti car collided with one person, as its driver was driving the car in a rash and negligent manner. However, he was neither associated in the investigation nor the police had ever recorded his statement during the investigation. He was introduced as eye witness for the first time before the learned Tribunal after about a period of four years, i.e. on 28.03.2013. In cross-examination, this witness feigned ignorance as to whether any FIR was registered or any investigation was conducted in this case. Had he seen the accident, he would have definitely informed the police. However, there is no explanation as to why he did not inform the police immediately when he himself had seen the accident. Therefore, no reliance can be placed upon his statement, which was admittedly recorded after a period of about four years before the learned Tribunal, as such, no 8 ( 2026:HHC:6531 ) benefit can be derived by the petitioners from his statement. 18. Even from the postmortem report, Ext. PW-1/A, it cannot be said that the deceased had died due to the injuries sustained by him in the accident. PW-1, Dr. Sangeet Dhillon has categorically deposed that the deceased died due to aspiration of gastric contents, while having a blood alcohol contents of 386.02 mg% and there was no ante mortem external injury present on the body of the deceased 19. Thus, from the perusal of the entire evidence on record, it has been established that there is no nexus between rashness and negligence attributable to the driver of the car and the cause of death of the deceased. The petitioners have failed to prove on record that the deceased was hit by the car in question. In fact, the petitioners have failed to adduce on record any cogent and satisfactory evidence to the effect that the deceased had died as a result of rash and negligent driving of the driver of Maruti car bearing registration No. HP-03-2822. 20. In view of my aforesaid discussion, this Court does not find any infirmity and illegality in the award passed by the learned Tribunal below. 9 ( 2026:HHC:6531 ) 21. Hence, the appeal filed by the appellants being devoid of any merit is dismissed and the impugned award dated 01.09.2015 is upheld. 22. No other point was urged before me. 23. The appeal stands disposed of in the above terms, so also the pending applications, if any. ( Sushil Kukreja ) Judge 9th March, 2026 (raman) 10