##PAGE1##

FAO-481-2002 (O&M) -1-

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH

FAO-481-2002 (O&M)

RAJ KUMAR AND ANOTHER

......... APPELLANTS

VERSUS

SATYAWAN AND OTHERS

..... RESPONDENTS

1. Judgment reserved on 21.01.2026

2. Judgment pronounced on 31.01.2026

3. Judgment uploaded on 31.01.2026

4. Whether only operative part of the judgment is Full

pronounced or whether the full judgment is

pronounced.

5. The delay, if any of the pronouncement of full No

judgment and reason thereof.

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHVIR SINGH RATHOR

Argued by : Mr. Rakesh Nehra, Sr. Advocate with

Mr. Rupender Singh, Advocate

for the appellants.

Mr. Vikas Chatrath, Sr. Advocate with

Ms. Priya Kanshik, Advocate and

Mr. Abhishek Sharma, Advocate

for respondent No.2-NIC.

****

YASHVIR SINGH RATHOR , J. (Oral)

1. The present appeal has been instituted by owner and driver

of the offending vehicle against the Award dated 09.08.2001 passed by

the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Rohtak vide which a sum of

1 of 10

::: Downloaded on - 03-02-2026 14:24:58 :::

FAO-481-2002 (O&M) -2-

Rs.50,000/- has been awarded as compensation to petitioner and

proforma respondents No.4 to 7 under no fault liability on account of

death of their mother, namely, Chand Kaur, caused by the offending

vehicle i.e. Truck bearing registration No.HR-22-8849, being driven by

appellant No.1-Raj Kumar (hereinafter referred to as respondent No.1)

rashly and negligently which was owned by appellant No.2-Manohar Lal

(hereinafter referred to as respondent No.2) and insured with respondent

No.3-NIC, whereby, respondents No.1 and 2 were held liable to pay

compensation jointly and severally.

2. Brief facts of the case are that on 05.11.1999, at about 8:30

A.M., Chand Kaur along with her son Ranbir was going to her fields to

collect fodder for their cattle in a tractor. When they reached near

Bahalba turning on National Highway No.10, they left the tractor there

and started proceeding on foot towards their fields. In the meanwhile,

TATA Tempo 407 vehicle bearing registration No.HR-22-8849, being

driven by Raj Kumar-respondent No.1 at a very high speed and in a rash

and negligent manner came from Meham side and hit Chand Kaur.

Thereafter, the said vehicle also hit labourers, who were engaged at the

spot in road construction work and some of them also sustained multiple

injuries. The mother of the petitioner died at the spot as a result of the

injuries sustained by her in the aforesaid accident. Soon after the

accident, Ranbir, son of deceased Chand Kaur with the help of one Rajbir

and some other villagers took the deceased and other injured to PGIMS,

Rohtak, in the same offending vehicle. On reaching PGIMS, Rohtak,

when they were busy in taking treatment, the driver of the offending

2 of 10

::: Downloaded on - 03-02-2026 14:24:58 :::

FAO-481-2002 (O&M) -3-

vehicle fled away from the hospital. It is submitted that the accident in

question occurred due to the rash and negligent driving on the part of

respondent No.1, while driving Tata Tempo bearing registration No.HR-

22-8849.

3. Respondents No.1 and 2 filed a joint written statement

denying all the averments made in the claim petition. It was pleaded that

a false case has been got registered against respondent No.1 in collusion

with the police, solely with a view to obtain compensation, and therefore,

the petitioner is not entitled to any compensation. It was further

contended that the deceased herself was negligent in crossing the road

abruptly and without caring for the traffic. Respondent No.1 claimed that

he had made his best efforts to avoid the accident but could not succeed

and it was an act of God. Accordingly, dismissal of the petition was

sought.

4. Respondent No.3-National Insurance Company filed

separate written statement and opposed the petition on the ground of

cause of action. It is further submitted that the driver of the offending

truck was not holding a valid and effective driving licence to drive the

truck at the time of accident and therefore, no liability could be fastened

upon