IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH (221) Reserved on:18.02.2026 Pronounced on: 20.02.2026 Uploaded on: 20.02.2026

1. FAO No. 4616 of 2005 (O&M)

Lakhwinder Singh And Others … Appellants Versus Jai Narain And Others … Respondents AND

2. FAO No. 4617 of 2005 (O&M)

Attar Singh … Appellant Versus Jai Narain And Others … Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE VIRINDER AGGARWAL Present: Mr. Kapish Singla, Advocate, Mr. Ashit Malik, Advocate for the Appellant in both FAOs Mr. Devinder Kumar, Advocate for Respondent No. 1 to 2 in both FAOs Ms. Madhu Sharma, Advocate for respondent No.3 *****

VIRINDER AGGARWAL, J

1. These two appeals have been preferred by the claimants against the common award dated 03.03.2005 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Karnal, in two connected claim petitions arising out of the same accident. Since both the appeals emanate from a common award and involve identical questions of fact and law, they are being disposed of together by this common judgment.

B ACKGROUND FACTS

2. The brief facts of the case are that on 21.04.2003 at about 9:30 PM, Satnam Singh, aged about 35 years, was riding a bicycle on G.T. Road near village Samana Bahu. Attar Singh, aged about 32 years, was seated on the front rod of the said bicycle. According to the appellants, a Maruti Car bearing registration No. HR-07D-8876, allegedly being driven in a rash and negligent manner by respondent No.1 Jai Narain, came from behind and struck the bicycle. Owing to the forceful impact, both occupants fell on the road, as a result of which Satnam Singh sustained grievous injuries and succumbed to the same, while Attar Singh suffered multiple serious injuries. In respect of the said occurrence, FIR No. 67 dated 22.04.2003 under Sections 279, 337 and 304-A IPC was registered at Police Station Butana. Thereafter, two separate claim petitions under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 were instituted before the learned Tribunal, Karnal one by the legal representatives of deceased ₹

Satnam Singh claiming compensation of 10,00,000/- on account of his death, ₹

and the other by injured Attar Singh claiming compensation of 3,00,000/- for the injuries sustained in the aforesaid accident.

3. Upon appreciation of the entire oral as well as documentary evidence on record, the learned Tribunal returned a categorical finding that although the claimants had established their relationship with the deceased Satnam Singh and the factum of his death, they failed to prove that the accident had occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of Maruti Car bearing registration No. HR-07D-8876 by respondent No.1 Jai Narain. Further, the learned Tribunal disbelieved the testimonies of the alleged eye-witnesses, namely Joginder Singh (PW-2) and Attar Singh (PW-3). It was noticed that the earliest version of the occurrence, as reflected in the FIR (Ex. P-1), did not disclose either the registration number of the offending vehicle or the name of its driver. Further, the learned Tribunal observed that the rukka (Ex.PW2/B) and the report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. (Ex.P1) did not clearly indicate the source from which the identity of the vehicle was subsequently ascertained. Significantly, Joginder Singh (PW-2), during cross-examination, admitted that he had not noted the registration number of the vehicle at the time of the accident. The learned Tribunal found this omission to be material, particularly when the vehicle was allegedly identified later with specificity. Moreover, the vehicle bearing registration No. HR-07D-8876 was taken into possession after a considerable delay, and no satisfactory explanation was forthcoming as to how it came to be connected with the accident. The learned Tribunal further held that the claimants failed to produce any reliable and independent evidence to establish that the accident in question involved the aforesaid Maruti car or that respondent No.1 was driving the same in a rash and negligent manner. In the absen