IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Reserved on: 12.02.2026 Pronounced on: 19.02.2026 Uploaded on: 20.02.2026 Bhanti @ Banti And Another … Appellants Versus Roshan Lal And Another …Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE VIRINDER AGGARWAL Present: Ms. Manu Sangwan, Advocate for the appellants (Through VC).

None for respondent No.1 Mr. Rajneesh Malhotra, Advocate, Ms. Manvi Verma, Advocate for the Respondent No.2/New India Assurance Company.

*****

VIRINDER AGGARWAL, J

1. The present appeal has been preferred by the appellant assailing the award dated 25.09.2018 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kaithal, whereby the claim petition filed by the appellant for grant of compensation on account of death of Ramesh suffered in a motor vehicle accident on 25.07.2017 came to be dismissed.

B ACKGROUND FACTS

2. The brief facts of the case are that on 25.07.2017 at about 9:00 P.M., Ramesh son of Phool Singh, aged about 49 years, was present near the bridge of Kutabpur Drain, between the boundaries of village Bhanpura and Kutubpur.

Suddenly, a Swift car bearing registration No. HR-08R-2916, alleged to have been driven in a rash and negligent manner by respondent No.1 Roshan Lal, came from the side of village Bhanpura at high speed and in a zig-zag manner and struck the deceased, who succumbed to the injuries on the spot. In this respect, an FIR No.115 dated 26.07.2017 was registered at Police Station Sadar, Kaithal, under Sections 279 and 304-A IPC. Consequently, a claim petition was filed before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kaithal, seeking compensation for the death of Ramesh in the accident.

3. The learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kaithal, upon appraisal of the oral and documentary evidence, held that though the claimants established their status as legal representatives of deceased Ramesh, they failed to prove the foundational ingredients of a claim under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act. The learned Tribunal found that the testimony of the alleged eye- witness Pawan (PW-2) did not inspire confidence. His presence at the spot at about 9:00 P.M. on a rural road between villages Bhanpura and Kutubpur was considered doubtful, particularly as he failed to satisfactorily explain how he could note the registration number of the vehicle in darkness. No independent witness from the locality was examined. His version was therefore treated as inconsistent, uncorroborated and unreliable. Further, the claimant-mother Bhanti @ Banti (PW-1) admittedly was not present at the scene and had no personal knowledge regarding the manner of accident or identity of the driver of Swift car No. HR-08R-2916. Her deposition was thus held to be hearsay and insufficient to establish negligence. Further, The learned Tribunal held that the FIR (Ex.PD) and the charge-sheet (Ex.PE) were not substantive evidence of rash and negligent driving. As the FIR did not conclusively establish the manner of accident or the definite involvement of the said vehicle. Furthermore, the medical evidence merely showed that the deceased sustained injuries consistent with a road accident, but it did not connect those injuries with the specific vehicle or attribute negligence to respondent No.1. In the absence of credible ocular evidence, independent corroboration, or reliable documentary material linking the accident with the offending vehicle and proving rash and negligent driving, the learned Tribunal concluded that the claimants failed to discharge the initial burden of proof. Consequently, the claim petition was dismissed and no compensation was awarded.

CONTENTIONS

4. Learned counsel for the appellants argued that the learned Tribunal committed a serious error in dismissing the claim petition despite the FIR, charge-sheet, site plan and the testimony of PW-2 which clearly established the involvement of the offending vehicle and rash & negligent driving by respondent No.1. It was further contended that the learned Tribunal wrongly disbeli