IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH PARKASH AND ORS.

......Appellants Vs.

TINKU AND ORS.

......Respondents Reserved on : 15.01.2026 Pronounced on: 26.02.2026 Uploaded on: 06.03.2026 Whether only the operative part of the judgment is pronounced? NO Whether full judgment is pronounced? YES CORAM: HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA Present: Ms. Ekta Thakur, Advocate for the appellants.

Mr. Varun Sharma, Advocate for respondent No.3.

****

SUDEEPTI SHARMA J.

1. The present appeal has been preferred against the award dated 02.03.2019 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chandigarh (in short ‘Tribunal’), whereby, the claim petition filed by the appellants was dismissed on the ground that rash and negligent driving on the part of respondent No.1-Driver could not be proved by the appellants/claimants.

BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE

2. Brief facts of the case are that on 25.01.2017 deceased was going from her home towards bank situated in Ram Darbar, Chandigarh as pillion rider upon Kinetic Scooter no. CH01-BK-7011 driven by respondent no.1 at a very high rash speed and in negligent manner. When at about 1.00 p.m. she reached near Gas Agency, Phase II, Ram Darbar, Chandigarh in the mean time respondent lost his control over the above said Kinetic Scooter as a result of which, fell down on the road. Due to this deceased suffered multiple injuries on vital organs of her body, which proved fatal for her.

3. Upon notice of the claim petition, respondents therein appeared and contested the claim petition by filing separate written statement denying the factum of accident/compensation.

4. From the pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal framed the following issues:-

“1. Whether on 25.01.2017, respondent no.1 caused the death of Mrs. Mangla Devi by rashly and negligently driving the offending vehicle bearing no. CH01-

BK-7011 ? OPP.

2. Whether the petitioners are entitled to compensation, if yes, how much and from whom? OPP.

3. Whether respondents no.1 was not holding an effective and valid driving licence at the time of accident ? OPR.

4. Relief.”

5. Thereafter, both the parties led their evidence in support of their respective pleadings.

6. After taking into consideration the pleadings and the evidence on record, the learned Tribunal has dismissed the claim petition. Hence, the present appeal.

SUBMISSIONS OF LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:

7. Learned counsel for the appellant contends that learned Tribunal has wrongly dismissed the claim petition filed by the appellant on the ground that appellants failed to prove that accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of respondent No.1. Further on the ground that no FIR was registered and no postmortem was conducted. She further contends that the documentary as well as oral evidence was not correctly appreciated by the learned Tribunal. She, therefore, prays that the present appeal be allowed and compensation be granted as per the settled law.

8. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.3 contends that learned Tribunal has rightly dismissed the claim petition filed by the appellant since no accident took place and number of vehicle was not mentioned in the DDR. He further contends that there is contradiction in the statement of witnesses as well. He, therefore, prays that the present appeal be dismissed.

9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the whole record of this case with their able assistance.

10. It would be apposite to reproduce the relevant portion of the award, which is reproduced as under:-

“ISSUE NO. 1

11. It has been argued by learned counsel for claimant/petitioner that there is ample evidence on record to prove that accident had taken place and death of Mangla Devi had been caused by rash and negligent caused by rast driving of offending vehicle bearing no. CH01-BK-7011 driven by respondent No. it No. 1. The learned The learned counsel for claimant relied upon judgments Radha Devi and others vs Parkash Sawami and others 2017(2) RCR(Civil) 440; Anbazhagan