1-

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

224 (1) FAO-507-2005 (O&M)

Date of decision :19.02.2026 MANJIT KAUR ... APPELLANT VERSUS AVTAR SINGH AND ORS. ...RESPONDENTS (2) FAO-508-2005 (O&M)

MANJIT KAUR ... APPELLANT VERSUS AVTAR SINGH AND ORS. ...RESPONDENTS (3) FAO-3650-2004 HARJIT KAUR ... APPELLANT VERSUS AVTAR SINGH AND ORS. ...RESPONDENTS (4) FAO-3651-2004 HARJIT KAUR ... APPELLANT VERSUS AVTAR SINGH AND ORS. ...RESPONDENTS (5) FAO-3652-2004 HARJIT KAUR ... APPELLANT VERSUS AVTAR SINGH AND ORS. ...RESPONDENTS

2-

(6) FAO-4104-2004 JASWINDER SINGH ... APPELLANT VERSUS AVTAR SINGH AND ORS. ...RESPONDENTS (7) FAO-4105-2004 JASWINDER SINGH ... APPELLANT VERSUS AVTAR SINGH AND ORS. ...RESPONDENTS (8) FAO-4106-2004 YADWINDER SINGH ... APPELLANT VERSUS AVTAR SINGH AND ORS. ...RESPONDENTS (9) FAO-4740-2004 JASWINDER SINGH ... APPELLANT VERSUS AVTAR SINGH AND ORS. ...RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PARMOD GOYAL Present: Mr. Rishabh Gupta, Advocate for the appellant(s).

Mr. Paul S. Saini, Advocate for the respondent-Insurance Company.

****

PARMOD GOYAL, J. (ORAL)

Nine appeals have been preferred by the claimant-appellants, who

3-

are aggrieved either by the dismissal of their claim petitions or by the inadequate compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bathinda (hereinafter referred to as the “Tribunal”) vide impugned award dated 17.05.2004. The details of the appellants-claimants as well as their respective claims are briefly noted hereunder:

4-

2. Deceased Tek Inder Singh (aged 34 years old), Deman Inder Singh (aged 7 years old), Tinveer Inder Singh (aged 12 years old), Bir Inder Singh (aged 37 years old), Harlin Kaur (aged 6 years old), Gurpartap Singh (aged 1 year old), Shawinder Kaur (aged 55 years old) and Parminder Kaur (aged 33 years old) had died and appellant-claimant Harjit Kaur had suffered injuries in motor vehicular accident which took place on 23.02.2000 on account of rash and negligent driving by respondent No.1 while driving truck bearing registration No. PB-11-D-9070.

3. Since in present appeals the only issue raised by appellants- claimants is as regards to quantum of compensation and there is no appeal or cross-objection preferred by respondents to challenge manner of accident, the detailed facts as regards to manner of accident are not being noticed for the sake of brevity.

4. Appellants-claimants have sought setting-aside of dismissal of claim petition and enhanced compensation. However, learned counsel for respondents have argued that sufficient amount has already been given as compensation in the present case and there is no scope of any enhancement.

5. Since in FAO No. 507 of 2005, FAO No. 508 of 2005 and FAO No. 4106 of 2004 appellants-claimants are aggrieved by dismissal of their respective

5-

claim petitions therefore, these three petitions are being taken firstly to find out whether claimants are entitled to compensation or whether their claim petitions were rightly dismissed.

FAO Nos. 507 of 2005 & 508 of 2005

6. In these two appeals learned Tribunal had dismissed the claim petitions on the ground that they were not instituted by authorised person in view of failure of claimants to prove power of attorney in favour of Manvinder Singh through whom petition was filed by claimants. Admittedly, the claim petitions were filed through a power of attorney of the claimant(s). A photocopy of the power of attorney was annexed with the claim petitions and the attested copy was tendered in evidence by AW-3 who also stated that original has been lost. Learned Tribunal, however, concluded that as claimants have failed to prove power of attorney as they have not proved it by way of secondary evidence, therefore claim petitions had been filed without proper authorisation and were not maintainable.

7. Learned counsel for the appellants has contended that the learned Tribunal had wrongly rejected the power of attorney on the ground that the original was not produced, despite the fact that AW-3 had cate