IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

205 FAO-2117-2006 (O&M)

Date of Decision: February 10, 2025 Asma and others ......Appellant(s)

Vs.

Mukut Gupta and others ......Respondent(s)

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA Present: Mr. Kul Bhushan Sharma, Advocate for the appellant(s).

Mr. Vinod Kumar, Advocate for Mr. Rajesh Lamba, Advocate for respondent No.1.

Mr. Lalit Garg, Advocate for respondent No.2-Insurance Company ----

S UDEEPTI SHARMA J. (ORAL)

1. The present appeal has been preferred against the award dated 12.09.2005 passed in the claim petition filed under Sections 166/167 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Faridabad (for short, 'the Tribunal') vide which the claim petition filed by the appellants/claimants for grant of compensation, was dismissed.

FACTS NOT IN DISPUTE

2. The brief facts of the case as mentioned in the claim petition are that on 23.11.2002, Shaheed, (Since deceased) while employed as driver on truck No. HR 55-A-1716 had after unloading gravel at Hamidpur started his return journey. At about 8 p.m., one Umar Mohammed was following the said truck in another truck. When these two trucks reached near G.H. Palwal, Shaheed statedly gave lift to some unknown person on his described truck but around 11.30 a.m. or 12 0’ clock when the other truck driven by Umar Mohammed was on its way back for making the second round, he noticed that the above described truck bearing registration No. HR-55-A-1716 was parked in the middle of the road with its head lights on and upon his stopping near the said truck, he noticed Shaheed, lying dead in the truck in a pool of blood, whereupon, the police was informed. Regarding this, a case under Section 302 IPC was registered. It is claimed that the death of Shaheed had occurred at the hands of unknown person during course of stealing the above described truck driven by him on the date and time in question.

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:-

i. Whether the accident in question has occurred due to rash and negligent driving of truck bearing No.HR-55-A-1716 by respondent No.1 ? OPP ii. If issue No.1 is proved, to what amount of compensation the petitioners are entitled and from whom? OPP iii. Whether the respondent No.1 was not holding a valid driving licence at the time of alleged accident. If so its effect? OPR2 iv. Relief

5. After taking into consideration the pleadings and the evidence on record, the learned Tribunal dismissed the claim-petition. Hence, the claimants/appellants filed the present appeal for grant of compensation.

SUBMISSIONS OF THE LEARNED COUNSELS FOR THE PARTIES

6. The learned counsel for the claimants-appellants contend that the claim petition has wrongly been dismissed since deceased was employed by respondent No.1 as driver and during the course of his employment, he was murdered. Therefore, he prays that the present appeal be allowed and compensation be granted to the appellants/claimants. He further contends:-

ii) That the deceased who was husband of appellant No.1 was murdered during the course of his employment and during the use of the vehicle by some unknown person having intention of stealing the truck.

iii) Learned counsel for the appellants/claimants has also relied upon the judgment passed by Hon’ble the Apex Court in case titled as Rita Devi and others Vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. and another (2000 ACJ 801).

7. Per contra, Ld. Counsel for the respondents argues on the lines of the award and contends that the award has rightly been dismissed by the Ld.

Tribunal. Therefore, they pray for dismissal of appeal.

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

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

“Issue No.1 Qua both these issues being interconnected