IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Reserved on:14.01.2026 Pronouncement on:19.01.2026 Uploaded on: 19.01.2026 Satpal(Since Deceased) Through LRs … Appellant Versus Reetu Road Lines (P) Ltd. And Others …Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE VIRINDER AGGARWAL Present: Mr. Anshuman Dalal, Advocate, for the appellant.

Mr. Vinod Chaudhri, Advocate, for respondent No.2.

Mr. Ravinder Arora, Advocate, for respondent No.4.

*****

VIRINDER AGGARWAL, 1. The present appeal has been preferred by the appellant assailing the award dated 24.12.2004 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Rohtak, whereby the claim petition filed by the appellant for grant of compensation on account of injuries suffered in a motor vehicle accident came to be dismissed.

B ACKGROUND FACTS

2. The brief facts of the case are that on 03.08.2001, appellant while travelling in a truck bearing registration No. (HR-46A-7851) from Udaipur towards Delhi, at about 7:00 p.m., when the vehicle reached near the Bhadeshar area in District Chittorgarh, it was hit by another truck bearing registration No.

(HR-38F-1326), coming from the opposite direction, which was allegedly being driven by its driver at a high speed, in a rash and negligent manner and in violation of traffic rules. Due to the said collision, the appellant sustained multiple grievous injuries, including fractures, and was first taken to a local hospital and thereafter referred to Pt. B.D. Sharma PGIMS, Rohtak, where he remained under treatment for a considerable period. On these assertions, a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act was filed before the ₹

Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sirsa, seeking compensation of 20,00,000 for the injuries allegedly suffered in the accident.

3. After a comprehensive assessment of the pleadings and evidence on record, the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal proceeded to decide the issues framed in the claim petition. On the principal issue relating to rash and negligent driving, the learned Tribunal concluded that the appellant-claimant had failed to establish that the accident occurred in the manner alleged or that the driver of truck bearing registration No. (HR-38F-1326) was driving the vehicle rashly or negligently at the relevant time. It was observed that the evidence led by the claimant was neither cogent nor convincing so as to fasten negligence upon the driver of the offending vehicle. On the contrary, from the manner in which the accident was stated to have occurred, the learned Tribunal inferred that the negligence was attributable to the vehicle in which the claimant himself was travelling. In view of the aforesaid findings, the learned Tribunal held that the claimant had failed to discharge the foundational burden of proof. 4. The learned Tribunal further observed that had the claimant not been travelling in his own truck driven by respondent No.3 and had otherwise sustained injuries without any negligence on the part of truck No. (HR-38F- 1326), he could have been entitled to compensation under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act. However, since the accident was found to have occurred due to the negligence of the vehicle in which the claimant himself was travelling, he was held not entitled to compensation even under the principle of no-fault liability against respondents No.1 and 2. With respect to the liability of the insurance company (respondent No.4), the learned Tribunal recorded a specific finding that even otherwise, the insurer of the offending truck could not be fastened with liability. It was observed that as per the insurance policy (Ex. R-7), no extra premium had been paid to cover the risk of the driver or conductor, nor was any evidence produced to establish that the claimant was a person whose risk was required to be covered under the policy. In the absence of proof regarding payment of additional premium or contractual coverage of such risk, the learned Tribunal held that the insurance company was