##PAGE1##

FAO-4130-2010

Page 1 of 7

(cid:1)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

207

FAO-4130-2010 (O&M)

Date of decision: 28.01.2026

Vandana Vasudeva & Others

...Appellant(s)

Vs.

Darpan Bali & Others

...Respondent(s)

CORAM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA

Present:- None for the appellants.

Mr. Pual S. Saini, Advocate

Ms. Gunjan Nahata, Advocate

for respondent No.3.

***

NIDHI GUPTA, J.

The present appeal has been filed by the claimants against the

dismissal of their claim petition by the learned MACT, Panchkula (hereinafter

‘the Tribunal’), vide Award dated 15.09.2009 passed in Claim Petition No.13

dated 02.02.2008 filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988

(hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). The four claimants are the widow, son,

daughter, and mother of deceased Sanjay Vasudeva, who was 36 years old at

the time of accident.

2. Present appeal is of the year 2010 and has been filed with a

delay of 75 days. In a fire incident that took place on 30.01.2011 in the Record

Section of the Civil Revision/FAO Branch of this Court, several files including

1 of 7

::: Downloaded on - 31-01-2026 13:45:11 :::

(cid:1)

FAO-4130-2010

Page 2 of 7

(cid:1)

file of the present case was burnt. Accordingly, vide order dated 17.02.2011,

fresh notices were issued to the respondents. Vide order dated 19.05.2011,

learned counsel for the appellants was directed to take appropriate steps to

implead Legal Representatives of respondent No.1. Till date, despite lapse of

15 years, no application has been filed by ld. counsel for the appellants for

impleading LRs of respondent No.1. Order sheets further reveal that none

has appeared on behalf of the appellants on the last three dates of hearing.

Accordingly, the present matter, being of such old vintage, is being decided

in the absence of learned counsel for the appellants.

3. It was the pleaded case of the appellants before the learned

Tribunal that on 07.05.2005, Sanjay Vasudeva had gone to meet his father-

in-law and when they were both returning on their separate scooters and

had reached near Mandi Board, Sector 6, Panchkula, truck bearing

registration No.HR-58-5728 (hereinafter referred to as “the offending

vehicle”) being driven rashly and negligently and at very high speed by

respondent No.1, owned by respondent No.2 and insured by respondent

No.3, hit into Sanjay Vasudeva, as a result of which he suffered multiple

grievous injuries. It was further averred in the Claim Petition that thereafter,

Sanjay Vasudeva was shifted to General Hospital, Sector 6, Panchkula;

whereafter he was referred to Government Hospital, Sector 32, Chandigarh

for further treatment, as his condition was serious. Ultimately, Sanjay

Vasudeva died on 13.06.2007 due to brain clotting. It was alleged that the

deceased was a Senior Assistant in the State Bank of India and was drawing

2 of 7

::: Downloaded on - 31-01-2026 13:45:11 :::

(cid:1)

FAO-4130-2010

Page 3 of 7

(cid:1)

a salary of Rs.23,000/- per month. The claimants were solely dependent on

the deceased. Accordingly, compensation of Rs.20 lakh was prayed for.

4. Upon appraisal of pleadings and oral & documentary evidence

adduced by the parties, learned Tribunal dismissed the Claim Petition being

not maintainable.

5. It is pointed out by learned counsel for respondent

No.3/Insurance Company that in respect of the accident dated 07.05.2005,

deceased Sanjay Vasudeva had previously filed a Claim Petition bearing

MACT Case No.74 dated 26.07.2005 before the Tribunal in respect of the

injuries and permanent disability suffered by him in the roadside accident

dated 07.05.2005. The said Claim Petition had been allowed by the Tribunal

vide Award dated 07.03.2007; thereby awarding compensation of

Rs.2,33,284/- to Sanjay Vasudeva. A copy of said Award dated 07.03.2007 is

handed over in the Court, which is taken on record. It is submitted that

therefore, the present/second Claim Petition in respect of the same accident

dated 7.5.2005, was not maintainable. It is accordingly prayed that the

present appeal be dismis