IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Kamla Rani and Others . . . . Appellants Vs.

Kamal Kishore and Others . . . . Respondents II. FAO-3860-2004 Kamla Rani . . . . Appellant Vs.

Kamal Kishore and Others . . . . Respondents ****

Reserved on: 05.03.2026 Pronounced on: 07.03.2026 Pronounced fully/opera5ve part: Fully ****

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA Argued by:- Ms. Archana Chauhan, assis(cid:30)ng counsel for Mr. Salil Bali, Advocate for the appellants.

Mr. Neeraj Khanna, Advocate for respondent No.3- Insurance Company.

****

DEEPAK GUPTA, J.

These two appeals arise out of two separate awards of the same date passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Gurdaspur, and therefore are being disposed of by this common judgment. FAO No.3859 of 2004 has been filed by the claimants seeking enhancement of compensa(cid:30)on on account of the death of Ravail Chand; whereas FAO No.3860 of 2004 has been filed by claimant Kamla Rani seeking compensa(cid:30)on for the injuries allegedly sustained by her in the same accident.

2. By the impugned awards, the learned Tribunal, while deciding claim pe(cid:30)(cid:30)on No. MACT-79-2000 rela(cid:30)ng to the death of Ravail Chand, granted an amount of ₹50,000/- under the principle of “No Fault Liability”. However, the claim pe(cid:30)(cid:30)on bearing No. MACT-78-2000 filed by Kamla Rani for compensa(cid:30)on on account of injuries was dismissed. Both the pe(cid:30)(cid:30)ons were essen(cid:30)ally rejected on the ground that the claimants had failed to prove that the accident in ques(cid:30)on had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the bus bearing registra(cid:30)on No. PAB-253 by respondent No.1.

3. The brief facts giving rise to the present appeals are that on 18.08.2000, Ravail Chand boarded the offending bus from Gurdaspur to return to his village. According to the claimants, the bus was being driven by respondent No.1 in a rash and negligent manner and at a very high speed. Despite requests made by the passengers to drive cau(cid:30)ously, the driver con(cid:30)nued to drive recklessly. When the bus reached near Adda Ram Nagar, the driver allegedly lost control over the vehicle and the bus turned turtle and fell into a drain (Ganda Nala). As a result of the accident, Ravail Chand and several other passengers sustained injuries. Ravail Chand was ini(cid:30)ally taken to Civil Hospital, Gurdaspur and subsequently shiCed to SGTB Hospital, Amritsar due to deteriora(cid:30)on of his condi(cid:30)on, but he succumbed to the injuries on the way on

20.08.2000.

4. It was pleaded by the claimants that the deceased was about 50 years of age and was the sole breadwinner of the family. He was stated to be an agriculturist as well as a milk vendor earning about ₹5,000/- per month. The widow and four children of the deceased thus sought compensa(cid:30)on for the loss caused to them due to his un(cid:30)mely death. Kamla Rani, the widow of the deceased, also filed a separate claim pe(cid:30)(cid:30)on alleging that she too had sustained injuries in the same accident and had incurred substan(cid:30)al expenses on account of her treatment.

5. The claim pe(cid:30)(cid:30)ons were contested by the respondents. The Insurance Company denied that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the bus driver and further pleaded that respondent No.1 was not holding a valid and effec(cid:30)ve driving licence. The driver and owner also denied the accident but admiEed that the vehicle was insured with respondent No.3-

Insurance Company.

6. The learned Tribunal, however, disbelieved the case of the claimants mainly on the ground that Kamla Rani, who appeared as AW-1, was not shown to be a passenger in the bus in the First Informa(cid:30)on Report dated 18.08.2000 (Ex.A2), and that neither the author of the FIR nor any other passenger of the bus had been examined to support the claimants’ version.

7. Learned counsel for the appellants has argued that the Tribunal misdirected itsel