IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 10.02.2025 Sumit @ Sunny ......Appellant Vs.

Ramphal and others ......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA Present: Mr. Tushar Gera, Advocate, for the appellant.

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

****

SUDEEPTI SHARMA J. (ORAL)

1. The present appeal has been preferred by the appellant for setting aside the award dated 18.04.2007 passed in the claim petition filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Hisar (for short, 'the Tribunal'), whereby, claim petition filed by the appellant/claimant for grant of compensation on account of injuries sustained by him, was dismissed.

FACTS NOT IN DISPUTE

2. The brief facts of the case are that on 22.11.2001 at about 6:00 P.M., appellant/claimant along with one Sanjiv Kumar was going from Nagori Gate, Hisar towards his house, on a scooter bearing registration No.HR-20E-1857, being driven by one Sanjiv Kumar, whereas, appellant/claimant was the pillion rider with him. When they reached near four-wheeler chowk, a truck bearing registration No.HR-38-2688, being driven by respondent No.1, came from the back side in a rash and negligent manner and struck against the said scooter. As a result thereof, scooter fell down and the appellant/claimant received multiple grievous injuries. It is alleged that the tyre of the offending truck ran over the stomach of the appellant/claimant, due to which, his hips, bones were fractured and his urinal track also got ruptured. Thereafter, appellant/claimant was shifted to Chawla Nursing Home, Hisar, where he was treated and operated by the doctors.

3. Upon notice of the claim petition, respondents appeared and filed their respective replies 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 resulting in injuries to Sumit took place due to rash and negligent driving of offending truck bearing registration No.HR-

38-2688 driven by respondent No.1, as alleged? OPP

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

3) Whether the offending vehicle was being driven by an unauthorized person without holding a valid license?

OPR3.

4) Relief.”

5. After taking into consideration the pleadings and the evidence on record, the learned Tribunal dismissed the claim petition. Hence, the appellant/claimant filed the present appeal for setting aside the award passed by the learned Tribunal and for grant of compensation.

SUBMISSIONS OF THE LEARNED COUNSELS FOR THE PARTIES 6. The learned counsel for the appellant/claimant contends that the learned Tribunal has wrongly dismissed the claim petition on the ground that the appellant/claimant failed to prove that the accident in question took place due to rash and negligent driving of the offending truck bearing registration No. HR-38-2688. He prays that the award deserves to be set aside and compensation needs to be awarded to the appellant/claimant, as per the latest law.

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 has rightly been passed by the learned Tribunal. 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 paragraphs of the award are reproduced as under:-

“10. Now coming the first plank of controversy, which is very crucial for the decision of the case, as to whether the accident in question resulting in injuries to Sumit took place due to rash and negligent driving of offending truck bearing registration No. HR-38-2688 driven by respondent No.1. In this context, the counsel for the Insurance Company vehemently contended that the present petition is nothing but a glaring exa