208 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH -.-

FAO-3360-2006 (O&M)

Date of Decision :-28.02.2025 Saroj Rani and Others ....Appellants VERSUS Satnam Singh and Others ....Respondents CORAM : HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA Present: Mr. N.K.Manchanda, Advocate for the appellants.

Mr. S.P.Garg, Advocate for the respondent-Insurance Co.

-.-

SUDEEPTI SHARMA, J.

1. The present appeal has been preferred by the appellants-claimants against award dated 10.03.2006 passed in claim petition filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, whereby the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Panipat (for short, ‘the Tribunal’), dismissed the claim petition of the claimants.

FACTS NOT IN DISPUTE

2. Brief facts of the case are that 10.11.1998 at about 7.30 PM Pawan Kumar son of Ram Parkash, was going on scooter near Patrol Pump in the area of village Mudki. In the meanwhile, a bus No.PB-11-H-1851 belonging to respondents No.2 and 3 came from the side of Amritsar which was being driven by Satnam Singh respondent No.1 in a rash and negligent manner. On reaching near Pawan Kumar he struck the same against him, as a result of which Pawan Kumar sustained multiple injuries. He was immediately shifted to Medical College &

Hospital, Faridkot, where he succumbed to the injuries.

3. Upon notice, all the respondents appeared and filed their respective written reply denying the impugned accident having been caused due to rash and negligent driving of offending bus by respondent No.1. According to their version, on that day offending bus started from Mudki Bus stand for Faridkot at about 19.30 hours alongwith passengers. About 1/2 kilometer from that place there is a wine Shop situated on the left side of the road. Respondent No.1 saw scooter coming from that Wine Shop at high speed and on seeing it he stopped the bus by applying brakes and bus stopped there and then and bus was still in low gears. The Scooterist/deceased, being drunk, lost control over the Scooter and dashed the same into the stationary bus on left side behind the front door, as a result he fell down. According further to them, driver of the Scooter, who was heavily drunk, was picked up and was got admitted in the hospital by respondent No.1. The impugned accident was alleged to have been caused due to rash and negligent driving of Scooter by the deceased himself.

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

1. Whether death of Pawan Kumar took place on 10.11.1998 at 7.30 PM in the area of village Mudki in road accident cause due to rash and negligent driving of Bus No.PB- 11-H-1851 by respondent No.1, as alleged? If so its effect?

OPP.

2. Whether Saroj Rani and Pariya Gupta were dependents upon deceased as alleged? If so, its effect? OPP

3. Whether Ram Parkash etc. claimants of consolidated claim petition were also dependents on deceased? If so, its effect? OP Counter claimants.

4. If issue No.2 and 3 are proved, then to what amount of compensation and from whom claimants and counter claimants are entitled? OPA & OP CC.

5. Whether this Court has no jurisdiction as alleged? OPR-2 and 3.

6. Whether claim petition is bad for mis-joinder & non-

joinder of necessary parties? OPR 2 and 3.

7. 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 LEARNED COUNSELS FOR THE PARTIES

6. Learned counsel for the claimants-appellants contends that claim petition is dismissed on the ground that the deceased Pawan Kumar was under the influence of liquor and it was due to rash and negligent driving of the deceased himself that the accident took place. He, therefore, prays that the present appeal be allowed.

7. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent-Insurance Company, argues on the lines of the award and contends that the claim petition was rightly dismissed by the learned Tribunal.