IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 24.01.2025 Smt. Luxmi Devi alias Luxmi Gupta ......Appellant Vs.

Surender Singh and others ......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA Present: Mr. Arvind Bansal, Advocate, for the appellant.

Mr. Paul S. Saini, Advocate, for respondent No.3-Insurance Company.

****

SUDEEPTI SHARMA J.

1. The present appeal has been preferred for setting aside the award dated 10.09.2005 passed in the claim petition filed under Sections 166/163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, ‘MV Act’) by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kaithal (for short, 'the Tribunal'), whereby claim petition filed by the appellant/claimant, was dismissed.

FACTS NOT IN DISPUTE

2. The brief facts of the case are that on 09.03.2003 at about 10:30 P.M., appellant/claimant along with her husband and child was going in a rickshaw from Rohini to Sultanpuri. When the rickshaw reached near Raj Kamal Hotel, a tempo bearing registration No.UP-14-S-2553 being driven by respondent No.1 in a rash and negligent manner, came from the back side without blowing any horn and struck against the rickshaw. As a result thereof, the appellant/claimant sustained injuries on her right arm, left ankle, left foot and other parts of the body. Thereafter, she was taken to Jaipur Golden Hospital, Delhi, where she was medico-legally examined and treated. In this regard, FIR No.134 dated 16.03.2003 under Sections 279 and 337 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, was registered at Police Station Mangolpuri.

3. Upon notice of the claim petition, the respondents appeared and filed their separate replies denying the factum of accident/compensation. 4. Appellant/claimant did not file rejoinder to the written reply.

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

“1) Whether the accident resulting into injuries to Luxmi Devi took place due to rash and negligent driving of vehicle No.UP-14-S-2553 on the part of its driver Anil Kumar, respondent No.2 as alleged? OPP

2) If issue No.1 is proved then what amount of compensation is the claimant entitled to? OPP

3) Whether the driver of the offending vehicle did not possess a valid and effective driving licence at the time of alleged accident? OPR-3.

4) Relief.”

6. After taking into consideration the pleadings and the evidence on record, the learned Tribunal has dismissed the claim petition. Hence, the present appeal.

SUBMISSIONS OF LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES

7. Learned counsel for the appellant/claimant contends that the learned Tribunal has dismissed the claim petition on the ground that there was a delay of 07 days in lodging the FIR.

8. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.3-Insurance Company, however, vehemently argues on the lines of the award dated 10.09.2005 and submits that the award has rightly been dismissed by the learned Tribunal. Therefore, he prays for dismissal of the present appeal.

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

10. The relevant portion of the award reads as under:-

“8. In order to prove this issue petitioner Luxmi Devi has appeared in the witness box as PW.1 and deposed that on 9.3.2003, she was going from Rohini Delhi to Sultanpuri Delhi in a rickshaw with her husband and children. At about 10.30 P.M. when they reached in front of Raj Kamal Hotel in the area of Mangolpuri a tempo tanker No. HP-14S-2553 came from behind. It was being driven rashly and negligently and it struck against the rickshaw, as a result of which the petitioner had fallen down on the road and sustained injuries on her hand and leg.

Besides the above oral statement the petitioner has placed on the file copy of FIR mark P.66. She has also produced the treatment record. The accident in question has taken place on 9.3.2003 at 10.30 P.M.. The FIR was registered on 16.3.2003. Copy of the F.I.R. has been produced as mark P.66. It gives the number of the offending tempo trailer but does no