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

FAO-2188-2007 (O&M) Reserved on:-28.02.2025 Date of Decision :-04.03.2025 Smt. Sushila and Others ....Appellants VERSUS Sanjay and Others ....Respondents CORAM : HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA Present: Mr. Ashish Gupta, Advocate for the appellants.

Mr. Aseem Aggarwal, Advocate for respondent No.3 – Insurance Co.

-.-

SUDEEPTI SHARMA, J.

1. The present appeal has been preferred by the appellants-claimants against the award dated 05.04.2007 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 appellant-claimants.

FACTS NOT IN DISPUTE

2. Brief facts of the case are that on 20.06.2005, Hawa Singh (since deceased) and his son Satender Kumar were riding a motor-cycle bearing registration No. HR-60-1266 for going towards village Bapoli from his village Bhrampur. At about 8.30 PM, when they reached near the gate of a warehouse, a motor-cycle bearing registration No.HR-60-4030 (hereinafter referred to as the offending motor-cycle) driven at a very high speed by Sanjay respondent No.1 in a rash and negligent manner from the opposite direction, hit the motor-cycle of Hawa Singh and his son Satender Kumar. They fell down on the road. The deceased received multiple grievous injuries. He was taken to Jindal Nursing Home, Panipat where he remained admitted as indoor patient for two days. After two days, when he was being taken to PGIMS Rohtak from the said hospital, he succumbed to his injuries on the way near Gohana. The deceased was 42 years old at the time of his death. He was in agriculture and dairy farming business and was earning Rs.15,000/-per month from the said avocation.

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 took place due to rash and negligent driving of vehicle No.HR-60-4037 by respondent No.1? OPP

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

3. Whether the respondent No.3 is not liable to pay any compensation in view of POS taken by it in the written statement? OPR-3

4. 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 only on the ground that there is a delay of 24 days in lodging of the FIR and further on the ground that the appellants were not able to prove the factum of compromise due to which the FIR was delayed. He, therefore, prays that the present appeal be allowed.

7. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent-Insurance Company, however, vehemently argues that the award has rightly been passed and the learned Tribunal has rightly dismissed the claim petition filed by the claimants. He therefore, prays for dismissal of the appeal.

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

9. The relevant portion of the award is reproduced as under:- “10. In order to prove this issue, one of the claimants Satender Kumar appeared as PW.1. As per case of the claimants, he was riding the motor cycle with his father when accident took place and was thus, an eye-witness to the accident. He has stated that on 20.6.2005, he and his father were riding a motor cycle for going towards village Bapoli from their village. His father was driving the motor cycle and he was a pillion rider. At about 8.30 pm, when they reached near a warehouse, the offending motor cycle driven at a very high speed and in a rash and negligent manner b