IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Pankaj Dhir and anr. ......Appellants vs.

Mohinder Singh and ors. ......Respondents Date of Reserve: 18.11.2025 Date of Pronouncement: 28.01.2026 Uploaded on:- 30.01.2026 Whether only the operative part of the judgment is pronounced? No Whether full judgment is pronounced? Yes CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA Present: Mr. Parminder Singh, Advocate for the appellants.

Mr. Anupam Singla, Advocate for respondent No. 2.

Ms. Ishani Goyal and Ms. Ipshita Goyal, Advocate for respondent-Insurance Company.

****

SUDEEPTI SHARMA J .

1. The present appeal has been preferred by the appellants/claimants against the award dated 13.07.2018 filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Patiala (for short, 'the Tribunal’), vide which the claim petition filed by them was dismissed.

FACTS NOT IN DISPUTE

2. Brief facts of the case are that on 15.10.1982, deceased Ashwani Kumar Dhir was going in Bus No: PUC-3454 from Sirhind to Patiala being driven by respondent no. I Mohinder Singh. The said bus met with an accident and thereafter, fell into Bhakhra Canal at Adampur Nirwana bridge. FIR No. 206 regarding the occurrence was registered on 15.10.1982 under sections 279, 338, 304-A IPC at PS. Sirhind.

3. Upon notice of the claim petition, respondents appeared and denied the factum of accident/compensation.

4. From the pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal framed the following issues:-

“1. Whether Ashwani Kumar Dhir son of Ved Parkash had suffered injuries in a motor vehicular accident, which took place on 15.10.1982 at about 5.45PM in the area of near Adampur Nirwana bridge of Bhakhra Sirhind. PS Sirhind, due to rash and negligent driving of Bus No. PUC-3454 by Mohinder Singh, respondent no I to which he succumbed? OPP 2. Whether claimants/petitioners are entitled to recover any compensation, if so, to what amount and from whom? OPP

3. Whether the claim petition is time barred? OPR

4. Whether this Tribunal has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain and try the present petition? OPR

5. After taking into consideration the pleadings and the evidence on record, the learned Tribunal dismissed the claim-petition. Hence the claimant/appellant filed the present appeal for grant of compensation.

SUBMISSIONS OF THE LEARNED COUNSELS FOR THE PARTIES

6. Learned counsel for the appellant–claimant contends that the learned Tribunal committed a grave error in dismissing the claim petition solely on the ground of delay of 36 years in its institution. He further contends that the learned Tribunal failed to appreciate the surrounding circumstances in a proper perspective. Learned counsel submits that the mother of the claimants, who was required to pursue the claim, was an illiterate lady, therefore, was neither aware of the legal remedy available to her nor in a position to approach the Tribunal within the prescribed time.

7. It is further contended that the present claim petition was instituted under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, which does not prescribe any period of limitation for filing a claim petition. In the absence of any statutory bar, the dismissal of the claim petition solely on the ground of delay is unsustainable in law. On these grounds, learned counsel prays that the present appeal be allowed and the impugned award be set aside.

8. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent has vehemently supported the impugned award and argued that the learned Tribunal has rightly dismissed the claim petition. It is submitted that the accident in question occurred on 15.10.1982 and, therefore, the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 would be applicable. Under the said Act, a limitation period of six months was prescribed for filing a claim petition, with a limited power of condonation on sufficient cause being shown.

9. Learned counsel further submits that the claim petition has been filed after an inordinate and unexplained delay of 36 ye