IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision-19.01.2026 Balbir Kaur and Another …Appellants Versus Balbir Singh alias Dalbir Singh and Others … Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE VIRINDER AGGARWAL Present: Mr. Sandeep Kotla, Advocate for appellants Mr. Ved Parkash, Senior DAG, Haryana Mr. Mohit Punia, Advocate Mr. Jainainder Saini, Advocate for respondent No.1.

*****

VIRINDER AGGARWAL, J.(ORAL)

1. This appeal is directed against the award dated 17.12.1999 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Hisar, whereby the claim petition filed by the appellants-parents of the deceased Sukhvinder Singh under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 was partly allowed and compensation of ₹60,000/- along with interest at the rate of 12% per annum was awarded on account of his death in a motor vehicular accident dated 04.11.1998 BACKGROUND FACTS

2. The brief facts of the case are that on 04.01.1998 at about 1:15 PM, the deceased Sukhvinder Singh was travelling on a Hero Honda motorcycle along with Harjinder Singh from Fatehabad to Hisar. When they reached near the Government School, village Badopal, a Haryana Roadways bus bearing registration No. (HR-39-0422), driven by respondent No.1, came from behind at a high speed in a rash and negligent manner and struck the motorcycle. The deceased fell on the road and the front tyre of the bus ran over him, resulting in grievous injuries. He was taken to the General Hospital, Hisar, where he succumbed to his injuries on the same day. FIR No. 426 dated 04.01.1998 under Sections 279 and 304-A IPC was registered against respondent No.1. Thereafter, the claimants filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 seeking compensation of ₹5,00,000 on account of the death of Sukhvinder Singh .

3. Upon appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence on record, the learned Tribunal noted that the claim petition was founded on the allegation that the motor vehicular accident dated 04.01.1998 occurred due to rash and negligent driving of Haryana Roadways bus bearing registration No. HR-39- 0422 by respondent No.1. In order to substantiate the said allegation, the petitioners examined Harjinder Singh (PW-2), who was travelling with the deceased on the motorcycle and claimed to be an eye-witness to the occurrence. The petitioners also relied upon documentary evidence, including the FIR (Ex. P1), report under Section 173 Cr.P.C., site plan (Ex. P4) and the post-mortem report (Ex. P3) of the deceased. The learned Tribunal took note of the fact that FIR No. 426 dated 04.01.1998 under Sections 279 and 304-A IPC had been registered against respondent No.1 and that he was facing criminal prosecution in respect of the accident in question. However, upon a comprehensive appreciation of the oral as well as documentary evidence, the learned Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident did not occur solely on account of rash and negligent driving of the bus driver. As while analysing the site plan (Ex. P4), the learned Tribunal observed that the motorcycle was found lying in the middle of the road, whereas the front portion of the bus had moved towards the extreme left side of the road and had partially gone into the ditch. From these circumstances, the learned Tribunal inferred that respondent No.1 had attempted to avoid the accident by swerving the bus towards the left side of the road, though unsuccessfully.

4. Simultaneously, it was held that the deceased was not driving his motorcycle on the extreme left side of the road and had, therefore, contributed to the occurrence of the accident. The learned Tribunal further observed that the deceased was a young boy riding a new motorcycle and that no evidence had been produced on record to establish that he was holding a valid driving licence at the time of the accident. Taking these circumstances cumulatively into consideration, the learned Tribunal recorded a finding that both the deceased and responde