IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

237 FAO-5089-2018 (O&M)

Date of decision: 19.01.2026 Bimla Devi & Another ...Appellant(s)

Vs.

Praveen @ Dilla & Others ...Respondent(s)

CORAM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA Present:- Mr. Yash Goyal, Advocate for Mr. Tanmoy Gupta, Advocate for the appellants.

***

NIDHI GUPTA, J.

The present appeal has been filed by the claimants against the dismissal of their claim petition by the learned MACT, Palwal (hereinafter ‘the Tribunal’), vide Award dated 02.04.2018 passed in MACP Case No.29 dated 11.04.2017 filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). The two claimants are the 43-year-old widow and 25-year-old son of deceased Virender, who was 45 years old at the time of accident.

2. It was the pleaded case of the appellants before the learned Tribunal that deceased Virender had died due to the injuries suffered by him in a motor vehicle accident that took place on 09.11.2016 due to the rash and negligent driving of the Car bearing registration No.HR-14M-7428 (hereinafter referred to as the “offending vehicle”) being driven by respondent No.1, owned by respondent No.2 and insured by respondent No.3. However, the learned Tribunal upon appraisal of pleadings and oral & documentary evidence adduced by the parties had concluded that the appellants were unable to prove that the accident in question “had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the vehicle bearing registration no.HR- 14M-7428 and the death of Virender son of Dharampal had caused due to involvement of the vehicle in question…”. Accordingly, the Claim Petition of the appellants came to be dismissed.

3. It is inter alia submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that the learned Tribunal was in patent error in dismissing the Claim Petition of the appellants on account of the fact that FIR No.465 dated 10.11.2016 had been registered against respondent no.1 in respect of the accident dated 9.11.2016, under Sections 279, 337 and 304-A IPC at Police Station Rajender Park, Gurgaon. The said FIR was registered on the basis of statement made by Balwant, who was eyewitness to the accident. It is further submitted that PW2 Sanjay Kumar, Ahlmad had also given evidence that in the said FIR, the respondent No.1 had been charge-sheeted for commission of offences punishable under Sections 279, 337 and 304-A IPC on 29.03.2017. Moreover, the complainant-eyewitness Balwant had brought broken number plate of the offending vehicle on 24.11.2016 to the Investigating Officer; and the two broken pieces of the number plate were duly identified by the Investigating Officer Dharmender through RTI. It is argued that therefore, there was no reason whatsoever to dismiss the Claim Petition. However, the learned Tribunal has brushed aside all the evidence brought on record by the appellants and dismissed the Claim Petition vide the impugned Award, which is based on surmises and conjectures. It is accordingly prayed that the present appeal be allowed and the impugned Award be set aside and compensation be awarded to the appellants.

4. No other argument is raised on behalf of the appellants.(cid:1)I have heard learned counsel and perused the case file in great detail. I find no merit in the submissions advanced on behalf of the appellants.

5. FIR No.465 dated 10.11.2016 was registered on the basis of statement made by one Balwant, alleged eyewitness to the accident in question. However, it is to be noted that in the first instance, the said FIR was registered against unknown person and unknown vehicle. It is only subsequently that Balwant had produced broken number plate which was allegedly of the offending vehicle. However, even the same is not sufficient to establish the involvement of the offending vehicle in view of the fact that the Investigating officer Dharmender while appearing as PW3 had stated that he had visited the site of accident on 10.11.2016 i.e. the day after the accident, and had not r