The court confirmed that evidence from credible eyewitnesses establishes composite negligence in motor vehicle accidents, justifying equal liability allocation.

JUDGMENT :

VIKRAM AGGARWAL, J.

CM-26212-CII-2025

Prayer in the present application preferred under Section 151 CPC is for condonation of delay of 48 days in refiling the appeal.

Heard.

For the reasons mentioned in the application, which is duly supported by an affidavit, the same is allowed. The delay of 48 days inrefiling the appeal is condoned.

CM-26211-CII-2025

Prayer in the present application preferred under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 is for condonation of delay of 80 days in filing theappeal.

Heard.

For the reasons mentioned in the application, which is duly supported by an affidavit, the same is allowed. The delay of 48 days in filing the appeal is condoned.

FAO-7309-2025

The instant appeal assails Award dated 03.04.2025 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Hisar (hereinafter referred to as “the MACT”), vide which the claim petition preferred under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short “the MV Act”) for the grant of compensation on account of death of one Sandeep, who expired in a motor vehicular accident, which took place on 21.01.2019 was allowed.

2. The facts, as emanating from the paper-book are that on 21.01.2019, one Krishna Devi along with Ashok Kumar, Om Parkash, Kuldeep, Sandeep, Anar Bai and Darshna had gone to village Hamjheri (Punjab) in a TATA Sumo bearing Regn. No.HR-16-D-0648 (hereinafter referred to as “the first vehicle”) to attend the funeral of one Shakuntla. After attending the funeral, they were coming back in the first vehicle, which was being driven by Om Parkash at a very fast speed and in a rash and negligent manner. Despite requests made by the occupants of the first vehicle to slow down, Om Parkash did not pay any heed. When they reached in the area of Village Rajalheri, Police Station Moonak, a truck bearing Regn. No.PB-11-BK-8363 (hereinafter referred to as “the second vehicle”) being driven by its driver (respondent No.3 in the claim petition i.e. Desh Raj) at a very fast speed and in a rash and negligent manner came from the opposite side and collided with the first vehicle. As a result of the impact, all occupants of the first vehicle, including its driver, sustained multiple grievous injuries. Krishna Devi and Kuldeep expired at the spot. Remaining injured were shifted to Rajendra Hospital, Patiala, where the driver of the first vehicle, namely Om Parkash, also succumbed to the injuries. Sandeep was referred to GMCH sector 32, Chandigarh, where he also succumbed to the injuries.

2.1 It was averred that the accident had taken place on account of the composite rash and negligent driving by the drivers of both vehicles. FIR No.11, dated 22.01.2019 under Sections 279 , 304A, 337, 338 and 427 IPC was registered at Police Station Moonak on the statement of injured eyewitness, Ashok Kumar.

2.2 Various claim petitions were filed, including a claim petition by the legal heirs of Sandeep, viz. his widow, minor son and parents seeking adequate compensation. It was claimed that Sandeep was 25 years old at the time of his death. He was working as a waiter and painter and was earning Rs.20,000/- per month. On account of his untimely death, the claimants had been deprived of his love and affection. It was claimed that he was the sole breadwinner of the family, and the claimants were dependent upon him.

3. The claim petition was opposed by the respondents. All amendments were denied. The driver of the first vehicle claimed that the accident had taken place on account of the rash and negligent driving of the second vehicle by its driver, whereas the driver of the second vehicle put the blame on the driver of the first vehicle

3.1 The insurance company raised its usual defenses in the written statement. Similarly, the insurance company of the