IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 233 FAO-4819-2018 (O&M)

Date of decision: 14.01.2026 Ved Pal & Others ...Appellant(s)

Vs.

Suresh Kumar & Others ...Respondent(s)

CORAM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA Present:- Mr. Shubkarman Kumar, Advocate for Mr. Manoj Kaushik, Advocate for the appellants.

Ms. Tanu Bhatia, Advocate for Mr. Sachin Ohri, Advocate for respondent No.3.

***

NIDHI GUPTA, J.

The present appeal has been filed by the claimants against the dismissal of their claim petition by the learned MACT, Sonipat (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Tribunal’), vide Award dated 01.03.2018 passed in MACP Petition No.267 dated 10.05.2017 filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). The three claimants are the 47-year-old husband, 19-year-old son and 17-year-old daughter of deceased Geeta, who was 42 years old at the time of accident.

2. The case as pleaded by the appellants in the Claim Petition before the learned Tribunal as recorded in para 2 and 3 of the impugned Award is as follows: -

“2. Curtly, the instant claim petition has been filed by the claimants, with the allegations that on 12.02.2017, near water tank in the area of village Sisana Sonipat, the respondent No.1 had driven his Scooty bearing registration No.HR-12W-8445, hereinafter being referred as offending vehicle, in a rash and negligent manner. As per claimants while driving the above said Scooty in the above mentioned manner he had hit the motorcycle bearing registration No.HR-79-3745, on which Smt. Geeta, the deceased was travelling, and that due to the impact of that collision Smt. Geeta, the deceased, had suffered multiple injuries on her person including grievous injuries, and that such injuries proved to be fatal for her.

3. The claimants have alleged that at the time of her death, the age of deceased was 42 years and that she used to earn Rs.15,000/- per month by running milk dairy, besides rendering services to the family as a house-wife and that because of the accident in question, the claimant No.1 has suffered the loss of life of his wife, & the claimant Nos.2 & 3 of their mother. Hence the petition for award of compensation.”

3. Upon appraisal of the pleadings and the entire evidence, the Tribunal found that the “claimants have failed to prove that accident in question was caused due to the rash and negligent of the offending vehicle by the respondent No.1.” Hence, Claim Petition was dismissed.

4. Learned counsel for the appellants assails the said findings of the learned Tribunal by submitting that in dismissing the Claim Petition of the appellants, the learned Tribunal has failed to appreciate the evidence on record. It is contended that enough evidence was led by the appellants, which was quite sufficient as per law to grant a reasonable amount of compensation to the appellants. It is submitted that as the Claim Petition has been wrongly dismissed, the appellants should be granted a just amount of compensation.

5. It is contended that the Id. MACT has further not considered the evidence in it's entirety, especially because the approach of the Id. Tribunal regarding the non suffering of serious injuries by the driver/ rider of motorcycle (PW-1 Dalbir) is no legal cause to disbelieve the facts of the matter, especially when the PMR states that the injuries suffered by the deceased were caused by road accident.

6. It is further submitted that the Id. MACT has committed serious illegality & irregularities by ignoring and not appreciating the facts & circumstances of the case properly; because the accident happened on 12.02.2017 and the FIR was registered on the very same day; however the name of accused/ respondent no.1 was not mentioned in the FIR, but within a short period of 12 days from the incident, respondent no.1 approached the PW-1 (Dalbir) author of FIR & Motorcycle rider; requesting for a compromise and instead of settling the matter the complainant reported the matter to police and his supp