##PAGE1##

FAO-3598-2025 Page 1 of 7

(cid:1)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

187

FAO-3598-2025(O&M)

Date of decision: 05.03.2026

Devender Kumar

...Appellant(s)

Vs.

Mamta Rani & Others

...Respondent(s)

***

CORAM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA

Present:- Mr. Shailender Kashyap, Advocate

for the appellant.

***

NIDHI GUPTA, J.

CM-11627-CII-2025

This is an application under Section 151 CPC for condonation of

delay of 35 days in re-filing the appeal.

After going through the contents of the application, which is

supported by affidavit of the appellant, the same is allowed subject to all just

exceptions and delay of 35 days in re-filing the present appeal is condoned.

CM-11628-CII-2025

This is an application under Section 5 of Limitation Act for

condonation of delay of 90 days in filing the appeal.

After going through the contents of the application, which is

supported by affidavit of the appellant, the same is allowed subject to all just

exceptions and delay of 90 days in filing the present appeal is condoned.

(cid:1)

1 of 7

::: Downloaded on - 07-03-2026 14:06:28 :::

FAO-3598-2025 Page 2 of 7

(cid:1)

MAIN CASE

Present appeal has been filed by the registered owner of

motorcycle bearing registration No.HR-04-9359 (hereinafter referred to as

“the offending vehicle”) laying challenge to the Award dated 21.09.2024

passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Yamuna Nagar at Jagadhri

(hereinafter ‘the learned Tribunal’) whereby Claim Petition No.384 dated

13.10.2017 filed by the claimants/respondents No.1 to 3 herein, under

Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act (hereinafter “the Act”) was allowed

and claimants were awarded compensation of Rs.14,59,200/-.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the ld. Tribunal on the basis of

pleadings and oral & documentary evidence adduced by the parties,

concluded that deceased Purshotam had died due to the injuries suffered

by him in a motor vehicular accident that took place on 24.08.2017 due to

the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle being driven by

respondent No.4 and owned by the appellant.

3. Liability to pay the compensation amount has been affixed

upon the appellant on account of the fact that the offending vehicle was

not insured at the time of accident and appellant is admittedly the

registered owner of the offending vehicle at the time of accident.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that liability to pay

the compensation amount could not have been affixed upon the appellant

as, on the date of accident, the appellant was not in actual physical

(cid:1)

2 of 7

::: Downloaded on - 07-03-2026 14:06:29 :::

FAO-3598-2025 Page 3 of 7

(cid:1)

possession and control of the offending vehicle as he had sold the same to

Harjit Singh respondent No.6 herein on 20.08.2008. It is submitted that

respondent No.6 had also executed an affidavit in this regard. Moreover,

NOC regarding the offending vehicle was also issued by the Licencing

Authority, Naraingarh on 20.03.2008 in this regard. It is accordingly prayed

that the present appeal be allowed, and impugned Award be modified/set

aside to the extent that liability has been affixed upon the appellant.

5. No other argument is made on behalf of the appellant. I have

heard learned counsel and perused the case file in detail. I find no merit in

the submissions advanced on behalf of the appellant.

6. Perusal of record of the case shows that it is asserted by the

appellant that he had sold the offending vehicle to Harjit Singh respondent

No.6 herein on 20.08.2008; and that Harjit Singh had executed an affidavit in

this regard in favour of the appellant; and that the Licensing Authority,

Naraingarh had also issued NOC dated 20.03.2008 in this regard. However,

Harjit Singh in his written statement filed before the learned Tribunal as

respondent No.4 has outrightly denied that he had ever purchased the

offending vehicle from the appellant. Harjit Singh had further stated that no

NOC was issued in his favour. Even further, it is also to be considered that

even though the offending v