IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 23.01.2026 Parveen Kumari ...Appellant(s)

Vs.

Raju and others ...Respondent(s)

CORAM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA Present:- Mr. S.S.Mor, Advocate for the appellant.

***

NIDHI GUPTA, J.

CM-2291-CII-202 5 This is an application under Order 41 Rule 27 read with Section

151 CPC for permission to place on record documents Annexures A-1 to A-5, by way of additional evidence.

2. By way of the present application, applicant/appellant is seeking to place on record Annexures A-1 to A-5 which pertain to the medical record of the deceased; as also the police proceedings.

3. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, the said medical evidence is not of any relevance. Moreover, no reason has been given by the applicant/appellant for not producing the above, said documents before the learned Tribunal.

4. In view of the above, present application stands dismissed.

FAO-745-2025 (O&M)

The present appeal has been filed by the claimant against the dismissal of her claim petition by the learned MACT, Jhajjar (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Tribunal’), vide Award dated 18.11.2024 passed in MACP Case No. 79 dated 18.11.2024 filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). The sole claimant is the mother of the deceased Harish, who was 20 years old at the time of accident.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the ld. Tribunal on the basis of evidence adduced by the parties concluded that the appellant/claimant had failed to prove that the accident dated 27.01.2019 at around 03:30 p.m. had taken place due to the rash and negligent driving of a Mahindra Scorpio bearing registration No.HR-06X-6256 (hereinafter referred to as “the offending vehicle”) being driven by respondent No1; owned by respondent No.2; and insured by respondent No.3.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant assails the impugned Award by submitting that learned Tribunal was in error in dismissing the Claim Petition as it failed to appreciate that FIR in respect of the accident, was registered on the same day on the basis of statement of injured Deepak (who subsequently expired), who had also sustained injuries in the same accident. It is submitted that from the record, it is also clear that the offending vehicle has been taken into possession by the police from the place of accident. Respondent No.1 has been charge-sheeted and the PW-7 Ahlmed from Criminal Court has appeared before the learned Tribunal and has stated that respondent No.1 is facing trial. It is submitted that therefore, in face of all the voluminous evidence, Claim Petition could not have been dismissed.

4. When it is pointed out to learned counsel for the appellant that at the time of accident, deceased was driving a bike on which 4 persons were riding, learned counsel contends that at best, the deceased could therefore, have been held liable for contributory negligence or some violation of the Motor Vehicles Act. However, the Claim Petition could not have been dismissed as negligence on the part of respondent No.1 in driving the offending Scorpio is established. It is accordingly prayed that the present appeal be allowed; and the impugned Award be set aside.

5. No other argument is raised on behalf of the appellant. I have heard learned counsel and perused the case file in great detail. I find no merit in the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellant.

6. The case as pleaded by the appellant in the claim petition before the learned Tribunal as recorded in para 7 of the impugned Award reads as follows: -

“7. The petitioners have stated that on 27.01.2019 petitioner Ravi along with his colleague Harish, Deepak Kumar @ Dipesh and Monu were going to Beri from village Dadri on a motor-cycle for meeting their friends. The motor- cycle was driven by Harish and Ravi, Deepak Kumar and Monu were pillion riders. When at about 3:30 PM, they reached near Dalawala Mandir at Dubaldhan-Beri Road then a Mahindra