IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 30.01.2025 Smt. Kelo Devi and another ......Appellants Vs.

Geeta Parshad @ Rajender and others ......Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA Present: Mr. S.N.Pillania, Advocate, for the appellants.

Mr. Vinod Gupta, Advocate, for respondent No.3-Insurance Company.

****

SUDEEPTI SHARMA J.

1. The present appeal has been preferred against the award dated 14.12.2006 passed in the claim petition filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bhiwani (for short, 'the Tribunal'), whereby the claim petition filed by the appellants/claimants, was dismissed.

FACTS NOT IN DISPUTE

2. The brief facts of the case are that on 18.06.2003, Naresh @ Sonu (since deceased) was travelling along with Ravi Kumar, Pawan, Neeraj, Sahil, Anil, Banti @ Sonu (since deceased), Ashok Kumar @ Sonu (since deceased) and Amarjit from Village Mundhal Khurd, District Bhiwani to Village Badsi, District Hisar, in a Gypsy bearing registration No.HR-21B- 3475, being driven by one Samunder Singh (since deceased), on the correct left hand side of the road at a moderate speed. At about 11:00 A.M., when the said Gypsy was about two kilometers from Village Sorkhi in Tehsil Hansi, District Hisar, a private bus bearing registration No.HR-39-6999, being driven by respondent No.1, in a rash and negligent manner, came from opposite side and hit the said Gypsy by going on the extreme wrong side of the road on kachha berm. As a result thereof, said Gypsy was totally damaged and all the occupants of the Gypsy suffered multiple and grievous injuries. Due to the accident, Samender Singh (driver of the Gypsy) died on the spot, whereas, Naresh @ Sonu, Ashok and Banti @ Sonu succumbed to injuries while they were on the way to hospital, on account of injuries suffered by them in the said accident. In this regard, FIR No.125 dated 18.06.2003 was registered under Sections 279, 337, 427 and 304-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, at Police Station Hansi, District Hisar.

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

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

“1) Whether the accident in question occurred on 18.06.2003 due to rash or negligent driving on the part of respondent no.1 Geeta Parshad, while driving the offending vehicle bus bearing registration No.HR-39-

3999 resulting into injuries to petitioners? OPP.

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

3) Whether respondent no.1 was not holding a valid and effective driving license at the time of accident? OP-

respondent no.3.

4) Relief.”

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

SUBMISSIONS OF THE LEARNED COUNSELS FOR THE PARTIES 6. The learned counsel for the claimants/appellants contends that the learned Tribunal has wrongly dismissed the claim petition on the following grounds i) That certified copy of the FIR was not placed on record; ii) neither Dharmender son of Mahabir, who had lodged the FIR, nor ASI Satpal Singh, who had recorded the same, have been examined;

iii) That original copy of the Post Mortem Report has not been placed on record and merely photostate copy (Ex.K1) of the same has been produced on record without examining the doctor, who has conducted the post mortem examination.

7. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.3-Insurance Company, however, vehemently argues that the award does not suffer from any illegality and infirmity and the claim petition has rightly been dismissed by the learned Tribunal. Therefore, he prays for dismissal of the present appeal.

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

9. The relevant portion of the award is reproduce