IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 11.03.2026 Raj Bala and others …Appellants Versus Naresh Kumar and others …Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE VIRINDER AGGARWAL Present: Mr. B.S. Walia, Advocate and Mr. Deep Inder Singh Walia, Advocate for the appellants.

Ms. Madhu Sharma, Advocate for the respondent no. 3- Insurance Company.

VIRINDER AGGARWAL, J. (Oral)

1. The present First Appeal against Order has been filed by the appellants- claimants assailing the judgment and award dated 28.07.2003 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Hisar, whereby the claim petition instituted under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 seeking compensation on account of the death of Bhoop Singh in a motor vehicular accident was dismissed. The appellants had sought compensation to the tune of ₹

10,00,000/- on account of the death of Bhoop Singh allegedly caused in an accident involving Maruti Van bearing registration No. CHF-0942 driven by respondent No.1 Naresh Kumar.

BACKGROUND FACTS

2. The case set up by the claimants before the learned Tribunal was that on 24.08.2001, deceased Bhoop Singh was going to his native village Jakhod Khera from Hisar in the morning hours on his motorcycle bearing registration No. HR-20-A-6345. He had started his journey from Masat Nath Colony, Hisar Cantt. It was alleged that the deceased was driving his motorcycle at a moderate speed and was observing all traffic rules. When he reached near Bye-Pass TCP No.3 Gate on G.T. Road, i.e. Delhi Road, Hisar Cantt., a Maruti Van bearing registration No. CHF-0942 being driven by respondent No.1 in a rash and negligent manner and at a high speed struck against the motorcycle. Due to the impact of the collision, Bhoop Singh sustained serious injuries and succumbed to the injuries at the spot. It was further alleged that the accident was witnessed by Ishwar Singh son of Deep Chand.It was further pleaded that the deceased was working as a property dealer and was also an ex-serviceman and was ₹

earning more than 10,000/- per month. Petitioner No.1 Raj Bala is the widow of the deceased, whereas petitioners No.2 to 4 are the minor children of the deceased. On these premises, the claimants sought compensation to the tune of ₹

10,00,000/- from the driver, owner and insurer of the offending vehicle.

3. Upon notice, respondents No.1 and 2 appeared before the learned Tribunal and filed a joint written statement raising preliminary objections that the claim petition was false, frivolous and vexatious and that the petitioners had no locus standi or cause of action. It was further pleaded that the petition was bad on account of mis-joinder and non-joinder of necessary parties. On merits, the involvement of Maruti Van No. CHF-0942 in the alleged accident was specifically denied. It was pleaded that the deceased himself was driving the motorcycle in a rash and negligent manner and that the respondent No.1 had taken his vehicle to the extreme left side, yet the motorcyclist struck against the Maruti Van. Respondent No.3-Insurance Company also filed a separate written statement raising preliminary objections, inter alia, that the claim petition was not maintainable. It was specifically pleaded that the First Information Report had been lodged against an unknown vehicle and unknown driver and that after a gap of about seven months the Maruti Van allegedly driven by respondent No.1 had been falsely involved in the case only with a view to claim compensation.

4. Upon appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence on record, the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Hisar concluded that the claimants had failed to establish that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of Maruti Van bearing registration No. CHF-0942 by respondent No.1. The Tribunal noticed that the First Information Report (Ex.P3) had been registered against an unknown vehicle and unknown driver and that the statement of the alleged eye-witness Ishwar Singh (P