IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

255 FAO-634-2024(O&M)

Date of decision: 11.02.2026 Ompati & Another ...Appellant(s)

Vs.

Rakesh & Others ...Respondent(s)

***

CORAM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA Present:- Mr. Sansar Kundu, Advocate for the appellants.

Mr. PHS Pannu, 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, Jind (hereinafter ‘the Tribunal’), vide Award dated 28.11.2023 passed in MACP Case No.57 dated 18.02.2021 filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). The two claimants are the 48-year-old mother and 27-year-old brother of deceased Ravinder.

2. It was the pleaded case of the appellants before the learned Tribunal that the deceased had died due to the injuries suffered by him in a motor vehicular accident that had taken place on 19.12.2020 at about 11 pm due to the rash and negligent driving of Tractor bearing registration No.HR-

32L-8610 (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 found that the appellants had failed to prove that “deceased Ravinder has died on account of the injuries sustained in the accident due to rash and negligent driving of vehicle i.e. Tractor bearing registration No.HR-32L-8610 by respondent No.1…”.

3. Learned counsel for the appellants inter alia submits that the learned Tribunal was in error in dismissing the Claim Petition in holding that the appellants had failed to prove the involvement of the offending vehicle as it failed to appreciate that claimant No.2 Sanjay/brother of the deceased was an eyewitness to the accident. He had appeared before the learned Tribunal as PW1 and had duly proved his case. Learned Tribunal has also ignored the fact that Sanjay had registered FIR No.477 dated 20.12.2020 under Sections 279 and 304-A IPC at Police Station Civil Line, Jind (Ex.P1) immediately after the accident, in which Final Report (Ex.P8) has also been filed against the respondents. It is submitted that therefore, the learned Tribunal was in gross error in giving the above finding and the impugned Award deserves to be set aside.

4. Mr. PHS Pannu, Advocate appears on behalf of respondent No.3;

and files Power of Attorney, which is taken on record.

5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent No.3 opposes the submissions advanced on behalf of the appellants and submit that the impugned Award suffers from no error; and the present appeal deserves to be dismissed.

6. No other argument is raised on behalf of the parties.(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.

7. It was the pleaded case of the appellants before the learned Tribunal as recorded in Para 2 of the impugned Award that:-

“2. The petitioners have come up with the averments that on 20.12.2010 at about 11.00 PM, Sanjay (petitioner No.2) and his brother Ravinder were going on foot to their village Kalwa from New Bye Pass Safidon Road, Jind. When they reached in between Pindara Road and Safidon Bye-pass, Jind, respondent No.1 while driving Tractor No.HR- 32L-6610 in rash and negligent manner came there from the side of village Nirjan and directly struck his tractor with Ravinder. After causing the accident, respondent No.1 along with above said tractor and trolly fled away from the place of accident. It is further averred that due to darkness and reflection of vehicle's light, the registration number of the above said tractor could not be seen. Thereafter, he with the help of passersby shifted his brother Ravinder to Civil Hospital, Jind where his brother was declared dead. The matter was reported to the police and FIR No.477 dated 20.12.2020 un