IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH

Reserved on: 28.10.2025

Date of decision : 23.12.2025

Uploaded on: 24.12.2025

YOG RAJ AND ANR. ......Appellants

Vs.

CHUHAR SINGH @ MAKHAN & ORS. ......Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA

Present: Mr. Amit Kaith, Advocate

Mr. Alankar Narula, Advocate

for the appellants.

Mr. K.S. Dhanora, Advocate

Ms. Kritika Mandhan, Advocate

for respondents No.1 and 2.

Mr. Vikas Kumar Gupta, Advocate

for respondent No.3.

Mr. Vinod Gupta, Advocate

for respondent No.4.

SUDEEPTI SHARMA J.

1. The present appeal has been preferred for setting aside the award dated 16.07.2008 passed in the claim petition filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Hoshiarpur (for short, ‘the Tribunal’), whereby, claim petition filed

by the appellants/claimants, was dismissed.

FACTS NOT IN DISPUTE

2. The brief facts of the case are that on on 22.10.204, at about 7.00 PM, Balwinder Kumar along with his mother Saroj Rani was going

towards their fields and when they reached in front of a bank in village Samudra, a Mahindra Jeep bearing No.PB-32-D-3805 (hereinafter referred as Offending vehicle), which was owned by respondents No.2 and 3, came from the opposite direction, respondent which was driven by a rash and in No.1 Chuhar Singh negligent manner and that jeep ran over Balwinder Kumar, who died at the spot. It was averred that a criminal case was registered against the driver of the jeep with the intervention of the State Human Rights Commission, Punjab, Chandigarh. It was further averred that the deceased Balwinder Kumar at the time of his death was just 11 ears old and was studying in a school. He had a bright academic future and the claimants had high hopes upon their son who was to look after them in the fag end of their lives.

3. Upon notice of the claim petition, the respondents appeared and filed their separate replies denying the factum of accident/compensation.

4. From the pleadings of the parties, the learned Tribunal framed the following issues:-

“1. Whether Balwinder died Kumar on 22.1.204 at about 7.00 PM in the area of village Samudra, P.S Garhshankar, due to rash and negligent driving of Mahindra Jeep No.PB-32-D-3805 by its driver respondent No.1 ? OPA

2. Whether the respondent No.1 holding a valid and effective driving license at the time of accident ? OPR

3. To what amount of compensation, the claimants are entitled and from whom? OPA

4. Relief.”

5. After taking into consideration the pleadings and the evidence on record, the learned Tribunal dismissed the claim petition. Hence, the present appeal.

SUBMISSIONS OF LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES

6. The learned counsel for the appellants/claimants contends that the learned Tribunal erred in dismissing the claim petition only on the ground that the appellants/claimants have failed to prove that accident in question occurred due to rash and negligent driving of offending vehicle.

Therefore, he prays that the present appeal be allowed.

7. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.4-Insurance Company, however, vehemently argues on the lines of the award dated 16.07.2008 and submits that the claim petition has rightly been dismissed by the learned Tribunal. Therefore, he prays for dismissal of the appeal.

8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the whole record of this case.

9. Before proceeding further, it is appropriate to reproduce the relevant portion of awarded dated 16.07.2008, which is as under:-

“ ISSUES NO.1 & 3:

7. Issues No.1 and 3 have been taken up together in order to avoid repetition since both these issues are interconnected. The onus to prove these issues was on the claimants and in order to discharge the said onus, the claimants stepped into the witness box as PW1 (Jog Raj) and PW2 (Saroj Rani) and they, in their affidavits Ex. PW1/A and Ex.PW2/A respectively, have deposed on oath all the facts mentioned in the petition.

8. Saroj on Rani (PW2) had deposed that 22.10.2004 at