IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

210 FAO-2364-2001 (O&M)

Date of decision: 27.01.2025 Smt. Manjeet Kaur & Others ...Appellant(s)

Vs.

Sher Singh Chauhan& Others ...Respondent(s)

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

Mr.Manoj Pundir, Advocate Mr. Sonu Singh, Advocate for respondent No.3.

***

NIDHI GUPTA, J.

Present appeal has been filed by the claimants against the dismissal of their claim petition by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to as “the learned Tribunal”) vide Award dated 07.12.2000 passed in MACT Case No.39 of 29.02.1996 filed by the claimants/appellants herein under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”). The four claimants are the widow, two daughters and son of deceased-Gurbax Singh who is stated to have died in a motor vehicular accident that took place on 07.08.1995 due to the alleged rash and negligent driving of the car bearing registration No.HR-07-1818 (hereinafter referred to as “the alleged offending vehicle”) by respondent No.3. Respondent no.1 is the owner of the alleged offending vehicle.

2. Learned counsel for the appellants inter alia submits that the claim petition of the appellants has been wrongly dismissed as admittedly the deceased had died due to the injuries suffered by him in the motor vehicular accident that took place on 07.08.1995. It is submitted that the deceased was taken to the hospital where he succumbed to the injuries on 27.08.1995. Immediately thereafter, an FIR was also registered against respondent No.1/owner and driver of the alleged offending vehicle on 28.08.1995. It is submitted that it is accordingly proven on record that the accident in question had taken place. Thus, the claim petition of the appellants has been wrongly dismissed.

3. No other argument is raised on behalf of the appellants.

4. I have heard learned counsel for the appellants and perused the case file in great detail.

5. Brief facts of the case as set out in the claim petition are that on 07.08.1995 at about 2:30 pm Gurbax Singh-deceased along with Joginder Singh and Narinder Singh was going on motorcycle and when they reached near village Pansara, car bearing registration No.HR- 07/1818/the alleged offending vehicle, being driven by respondent No.3 in rash and negligent manner came from behind and struck against the motorcycle. As a result all of them fell down and sustained injuries and from there Gurbax Singh was referred to PGI where he succumbed to his injuries on 27.08.1995.

6. The claim petition was contested by respondent No.1 and respondent No.3 through written statement and took legal objection that no accident had taken place with the car in question. The deceased fell down from the motorcycle himself due to skidding as it was raining on 07.08.1995 near Yamuna bridge. One Head Constable stopped the car driven by respondent No.3 in which respondent No.1 was sitting and they were going to Yamuna Nagar from Saharanpur. When they stopped the car, police asked them to take the injured to hospital so respondents took them to Yamuna Nagar and got them admitted in the hospital at Jagadhri. But later on false FIR was registered against respondent No.3 on 28.08.1995.However, on investigation the said FIR was cancelled through cancellation report (Ex.R1).

7. The claimants examined Jagdev Singh PW2 who deposed that deceased was his uncle and on 07.08.1995 he along with Narinder Singh were going on his motorcycle. He also deposed that he (PW2) was driving the motorcycle and Narinder Singh was sitting on the pillion. Then he corrected himself and deposed that he, Gurbax (deceased) and Narinder Singh was sitting behind him and Gurbax Singh was driving the motorcycle on the correct side at slow speed when alleged offending car came from behind and struck into motorcycle from behind and as a result all three of them fell down. The said car was driven rashly.

8. In his depos