IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 06.03.2026 Raj Kumar and another ....Appellants V/s Madhu Sudan Kumar and others .…Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKRAM AGGARWAL Present: Ms. Saksham Sharma, Advocate, for the appellants.

Mr. D.P. Gupta, Advocate for respondent No.3-insurance co.

Mr. Mohit Kaushik, Advocate for Mr. Vishwajit Bedi, Advocate, for respondent No.5.

***

VIKRAM AGGARWAL, J. (ORAL)

The present appeal has been filed against the award dated

01.06.2010 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bhiwani (hereinafter referred to as “the MACT”), whereby the claim petition filed by the appellants under Sections 163-A/166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short “the MV Act”), seeking compensation on account of death of Harikesh alias Hari Kishan, was dismissed.

2. The facts as emanating from the paperbook are that on 27.12.2006, at about 5:00 A.M., deceased-Harikesh alias Hari Kishan was driving truck bearing Regn. No.HR-46-B-6548 (hereinafter referred to as “the non-offending vehicle”) towards Samtel Factory situated at Bulandsahar Road. When the said truck reached near Hapur Chowk, another truck bearing Regn. No.HR-38-M-9269 (hereinafter referred to as “the offending vehicle”) allegedly driven by respondent No.1 in a rash and negligent manner and at a high speed, came from the opposite direction and collided with the non-offending vehicle. As a result of the said collision, Harikesh @ alias Hari Kishan (hereinafter referred to as “the deceased”) sustained multiple grievous injuries and died at the spot. The body of the deceased was taken to the Government Hospital, Gaziabad, where its post- mortem was conducted. FIR No.573 dated 27.12.2006 under Sections 279, 337, 304A IPC was registered at Police Station Gaziabad on the statement of Mani Shankar Upadhyay, who was stated to be an employee of respondent No.4.

3. It was averred in the claim petition that the deceased was unmarried and working as a professional driver earning about Rs.5,000/- per month and the appellants being his elder brothers, were totally dependent upon his income.

4. Upon notice, respondents No.1 and 2 i.e., the driver and owner of the offending vehicle, appeared and filed their written statement admitting the factum of the accident but denied the allegations and pleaded that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the deceased himself. It was further pleaded that a false FIR had been lodged against respondent No.1.

5. Respondent No.3 i.e. Insurance Company of the offending vehicle also filed its written statement raising similar pleas and contended that respondent No.1 was not holding a valid and effective driving licence at the time of the accident.

6. Respondent No.4 i.e. the owner of the non-offending vehicle supported the case of the appellant-claimants and alleged that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle.

7. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed:-

“1. Whether the accident which occurred on 27.12.2006 causing death of Harikesh @ Hari Kishan son of Shri Rampal Singh due to rash and negligent driving of respondent No.1 while driving the Dumpher No.HR-38-M-9269? OPP

2. If issue No.1 is proved, whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation, if so to what amount and from whom?OPP

3. Whether the driver of the offending vehicle i.e. respondent No.1 was not holding the valid driving license on the date of accident and the vehicle in question was being driven in violation of the terms and conditions of the issuance policy at the time of accident?OPR

4. Whether the respondent No.3 is liable to indemnify the compensation to the claimant?OPR

5. Whether the present petition is not maintainable in its present form?OPR

6. Relief.”

8. Parties led their respective evidence.

9. As regards the issue of negligence, the MACT came to the conclusion that the appellants had failed to prove that the accident had taken pla