IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

238 FAO-2710-2019(O&M)

Date of decision: 30.04.2025 Reena & Others ...Appellant(s)

Vs.

Subhash Chander & Others ...Respondent(s)

CORAM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA Present:- Mr. Manish Verma, Advocate for the appellants.

Mr. Rahul Bansal, Advocate for Mr. D.R. Bansal, Advocate for respondent No.3/Insurance Company.

***

NIDHI GUPTA, J.

Present appeal has been filed by the claimants laying challenge to the Award dated 01.02.2019 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Hisar (hereinafter referred to as “the Tribunal”), whereby Claim Petition bearing MACT Case No.6 of 2018 dated 24.01.2018 filed by the appellants under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”), has been dismissed. The 4 claimants are the widow, minor son, and parents of the deceased Sandeep.

2. Brief facts of the case as pleaded in the claim petition are that on 04.11.2017, Sandeep was going towards his fields on his Bajaj Discover motorcycle bearing registration No.HR-80-3191 for looking after the same. At about 9.30 p.m. when he reached on Jind road in the area of village Gyanpura, then offending Maruti Alto Car bearing registration No. HR-20H-0252 (hereinafter referred to as “the offending vehicle”) which was being driven by its driver i.e. respondent No.1 at a very high speed and in a rash, negligent, careless and in a zigzag manner came there and directly struck into the motor cycle of Sandeep, due to which, Sandeep sustained serious, grievous and multiple injuries and he was taken to CHC Barwala from where he was referred to Government Hospital, Hisar where he succumbed to the injuries after some time. A criminal case bearing FIR No.463 dated 05.11.2017 (Ex.P2) under Sections 279 and 304-A IPC was registered in Police Station Barwala, regarding this accident on the statement of Anil Kumar.

3. It was further pleaded in the claim petition that the deceased was 33 years old at the time of accident and was earning Rs.15,000/- per month from Tara Cattle Feed and Rs.15,000/- from agriculture and dairy farming. It was further stated that the deceased had died during treatment in hospital and an amount of Rs.70,000/- was spent by the claimants on transportation and funeral and last rites. Accordingly, compensation of Rs.50 lakh was claimed.

4. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the claim petition of the appellants could not have been dismissed in view of the fact that as per the Post-Mortem Report dated 05.11.2017 (Ex.P4), the cause of death of deceased was “shock and haemorrhage as a result of head injuries which was sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature. All injuries are antemortem in nature and possible in an accident.” It is submitted that it was well proven by the appellant before the learned Tribunal that the deceased had died due to the injuries suffered by him in the accident in question. However, these factsand evidence have been ignored by the learned Tribunal in passing the impugned Award. Learned counsel contends that in a proceeding under the Act, only a prima facie case is required to be made out against the respondents. In the present case, it is admitted that report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. (Ex.P1) was filed against the respondents No.1 and 2 thereby proving the involvement of the offending vehicle. Respondent No.1 was also facing trial in the FIR. The appellants were only required to prove their case on the preponderance of the probabilities. As such, the learned Tribunal was in patent error in dismissing the claim petition. It is accordingly prayed that the impugned Award be set aside. Learned counsel relies upon judgments of this Court in “Harbans Lal & Others Vs. Harvinder Pal & Others” Law Finder Doc ID #

726118; and “United India Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Om Pati & Others”

Law Finder Doc ID # 826688.

5. Learned counsel for respondent No.3/Insurance Company opposes the prayer made on behalf of the appellants and submits that the driv