IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

201 FAO-692-2006 (O&M)

Date of Decision: January 10, 2025 Vijay Kumar ......Appellant Vs.

Rohtash and another ......Respondents

201-A FAO-693-2006 (O&M)

Subhash ......Appellant Vs.

Rohtash and another ......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA Present: Mr. Tara Chand Dhanwal, Advocate for the appellants.

Mr. Sushil Sheoran, Advocate for Mr. R.A. Sheoran, Advocate for respondent No.1.

*****

S UDEEPTI SHARMA J. (ORAL)

Vide this common judgment, the aforesaid two appeals are being decided as the same have arisen out of the common award dated 27.10.2005 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bhiwani (for short, 'the Tribunal') and the common question of law is involved in both the appeals. For brevity, facts have been taken from FAO-692-2006.

2. The present appeals have been preferred against the award dated 27.10.2005 passed in the claim petition filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 by the Tribunal) vide which the claim petition filed by the appellants/claimants for grant of compensation, was dismissed.

FACTS NOT IN DISPUTE

3. The brief facts of the case as mentioned in the claim petition are that on 24.9.2002, at about 3.30 p.m. claimant-Subhash was going to Village Tigrana via Hansi Chowk by driving his scooter and the claimant Vijay was pillion rider. When they reached near Tosham bye-pass on Hansi Road, Truck No. HR-13-3515 came from the opposite side being driven rashly and negligently by Rohtash-respondent no. 1 without blowing any horn, the truck struck against front side of the scooter. As a result of which, both of them fell down on the road alongwith the scooter and received multiple injuries. The accident took place due to sole rash and negligent driving of respondent No. 1 Rohtash, for which FIR No. 386 dated 24.9.2002 was lodged on the same day at Police Station Sadar Bhiwani for offences punishable under Sections

279/337 of IPC against the driver-Rohtash.

4. Upon notice of the claim petition, respondents appeared and filed written reply denying the factum of accident/compensation.

5. From the pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal framed the following issues:-

1. Whether the accident dated 24.9.2002 resulting into injuries to petitioners Subhash and Vijay Kumar took place due to rash and negligent driving of truck No. HR-13/3515 by respondent No. 1 Rohtash? OPP

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

3. Relief

6. After taking into consideration the pleadings and the evidence on record, the learned Tribunal dismissed the claims-petitions. Hence the claimants/appellants filed the present appeals for grant of compensation.

SUBMISSIONS OF THE LEARNED COUNSELS FOR THE PARTIES

7. The learned counsel for the claimants-appellants contend that the claim petitions were dismissed only on the ground that the appellants had already received the amount by way of compromise between the parties. Therefore, he prays that the present appeal be allowed and compensation be granted to the appellants/claimants.

8. Per contra, Ld. Counsel for the respondents argues on the lines of the award and relied upon Ex.R-1 and Ex.R-2 which are receipts proved on record showing that full and final settlement to the tune of Rs.31,000/- was effected between the parties. He further contends that the award has rightly been dismissed by the Ld. Tribunal. Therefore, they pray for dismissal of appeal.

9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the whole record of this case.

10. Relevant portion of the award passed by the Ld. Tribunal is reproduced as under:-

14. In view of findings on issue no. 1, it is very clear that the claimants are not entitled to compensation from the respondents.

Claimant Subhash cannot claim any benefit of his own wrong.

15. Even otherwise, respondent Rohtash RW2 and attesting witness Krishan Kumar RW1, have proved receipts Ex. R1 and Ex. R2 executed by both the claima