IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Reserved on:19.02.2026 Pronounced on: 26.02.2026 Uploaded on: 27.02.2026 Seema Devi …Appellant Versus Mahabir Singh and others …Respondents CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE VIRINDER AGGARWAL Present : Mr. Kulvir Narwal, Advocate for the appellant.

Mr. D.R.Bansal, Advocate for the respondent /Insurance Company.

VIRINDER AGGARWAL,J

1. This First Appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is directed against the award dated 13.10.2001 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Rohtak, whereby the claim petition filed by the appellant seeking compensation of ₹8,00,000/- on account of the death of her husband, Anil Kumar, in a motor vehicular accident dated 14.11.1996 was dismissed in its entirety.

BACKGROUND FACTS

2. On 14.11.1996, the deceased Anil Kumar (aged about 20-22 years) was travelling as a passenger in Jeep No. HR-14-9346 from Rohtak towards Jhajjar. The jeep was being driven by Ashok Kumar. When the jeep reached near village Gudha, a Truck No. HR-38-5718 coming from the opposite direction collided with it. As a result of the accident, Anil Kumar sustained fatal injuries and died at the spot. FIR No.469 dated 14.11.1996 under Sections 279/304-A IPC was registered at PS Jhajjar on the statement of Mukesh Kumar (cleaner of the jeep). The appellant (widow) filed the claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act claiming ₹8,00,000/- as compensation, pleading that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving by the drivers of both vehicles. It was asserted that the deceased was earning ₹5,000-6,000/- per month as an electrician and was the sole breadwinner of the family.

3. Upon appreciation of evidence, the learned Tribunal categorically held that the claimants failed to prove rash and negligent driving by either driver. The learned Tribunal observed that though the FIR (Ex.PB) was placed on record, it was not proved by examining its maker, Mukesh Kumar. It was further held that other passengers travelling in the jeep were also not examined and that Mukesh Kumar, being the cleaner and an eyewitness, was the best person to unfold the manner of the accident. Non-examination of such vital witness led the learned Tribunal to draw an adverse inference against the claimants. The learned Tribunal hold that an unproved FIR is of no evidentiary value. Consequently, though the accident and death were admitted, the learned Tribunal held that “liability of none can be fixed” and dismissed the petition.

CONTENTIONS

4. Learned Counsel for the appellant has assailed the award primarily on the ground that the learned Tribunal adopted a hyper-technical approach which is contrary to the beneficial and summary nature of proceedings under the Motor Vehicles Act. Learned counsel for the appellant has contended that the collision between two vehicles resulting in the death of an innocent passenger itself attracts the principle of res ipsa loquitur. It is further submitted that even if negligence under Section 166 is not established, the appellant is entitled to compensation as when accident is proved then any one of the driver out of two vehicles was negligent and deceased was only passenger in the Jeep.

5. Per contra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents has supported the impugned award and contended that, in a petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, strict proof of negligence is a sine qua non for grant of compensation. It is argued that the non-examination of the alleged eyewitnesses is fatal to the claim case and creates a serious dent in the version put forth by the claimants. On these premises, it is submitted that the findings recorded by the learned Tribunal are just, legal and well-reasoned, and do not warrant any interference by this Court. Accordingly, a prayer has been made for dismissal of the present appeal.

OBSERVATIONS AND FINDINGS

6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have carefully gone through the recor