IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 23.02.2026 Ram Kumar & anr. ….Appellants Versus Ishwar & ors. ....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA Present:- Mr. Sanchit Poonia, Advocate for the appellants.

None for the respondents.

NIDHI GUPTA, J.

1. The present appeal has been filed by the claimants seeking se"ng aside of the Award dated 10.12.2019 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Hisar (for short “the learned Tribunal”), whereby claim pe..on No.131 of 2018 dated 18.07.2018 filed by the appellants under Sec.on 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereina4er referred to as ‘the Act’) has been dismissed. The two claimants are 62-year-old father and 52- year-old mother of the deceased Amarjeet, who was 23 years old at the .me of accident.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the ld. Tribunal on the basis of pleadings and evidence adduced by the par.es concluded that the appellants had failed to prove that the deceased Amarjeet had died due to injuries suffered by him in a motor vehicular accident that took place on 23.04.2018 at 10 PM due to the rash and negligent driving of the Escorts Tractor bearing Registra.on No.HR-21M-3005 (hereina4er “the offending vehicle”); being driven by respondent No.1, owned by respondent No.2 and insured by respondent No.3. The learned Tribunal concluded as above on the ground that “when the circumstances a(cid:14)ending to the case speaks volume that respondent No.1 has been arranged later on as driver of the offending tractor and tractor number has been arranged with the sole inten(cid:28)on to extract compensa(cid:28)on.

3. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the learned Tribunal was in patent error in dismissing the claim pe..on as it failed to appreciate the oral and documentary evidence on record; and also failed to appreciate that respondent No.1 is facing criminal trial in FIR No.188, dated 24.04.2018 registered under Sec.ons 279 & 304-A IPC, at Police Sta.on City Hansi, District Hisar. It is submiDed that even challan has been filed against respondent No.1, therefore, there was no reason to disbelieve the case set up by the appellants. It is accordingly prayed that the present Appeal be allowed;

and the impugned Award be set aside.

4. No other argument is made on behalf of the appellants. I have heard learned counsel for the appellants and perused the case file in detail. I find no merit in the submissions advanced on behalf of the appellants.

5. A perusal of the record of the case shows that FIR No.188 dated 24.04.2018 was registered on the basis of statement made by PW1 Pritam Singh eyewitness. However, Pritam Singh eyewitness has given contradictory statements, which were not trustworthy. It is to be noted that the above said FIR was registered against an unknown vehicle and unknown person. As per first statement given by PW-1 to the Police, he had stated that due to darkness he could not note down the number of the offending vehicle. As per the final report under sec.on 173 CRPC, on the very next day, PW-1 had made supplementary statement that he had come to know the number of Tractor as HR-21M-3005 and that it was being driven by Ishwar Singh-respondent No.1. During his cross-examina.on PW-1 has stated that his statement was recorded on 01.05.2018 in Killa Chowki, Hansi; and it is admiDed that details of the person who told him the number of the tractor and name of driver is not men.oned in the said statement. Thus, evidence of the eyewitness/complainant is not reliable. PW-1 was unable to explain the contradic.ons in his statement. If his statement made at the .me of registering the FIR is to be believed, then details of the offending vehicle were not known due to the fact that a4er the accident, the driver had fled away from the spot and that accident had taken place at 10.00 PM and in the darkness, PW-1 could not note down the number of the tractor. Accordingly, FIR was registered against unknown driver and unknown