205 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 06.03.2025 Gurdial Kaur ......Appellant Vs.

Kuldip Singh and others ......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA Present: Mr. Alankar Narula, Advocate, for the appellant.

Mr. Suvir Dewan, Advocate, for respondent No.3-Insurance Company.

****

SUDEEPTI SHARMA J. (ORAL)

1. This is an old matter pertaining to the year 2006 but no one has put in appearance on behalf of the Insurance Company.

2. Previously vide order dated 18.07.2024 passed in FAO No.1682 of 2007, this Court had already issued directions to the Insurance Companies that in the event, any of their empanelled counsel fails to appear, this Court would request the counsel empanelled with the Insurance Company, who is present in the Court to assist in the matters. Further, the concerned Insurance Companies were directed to disburse the current scheduled fees to the counsel engaged by this Court for assisting in the matters.

3. On the asking of the Court, Mr. Suvir Dewan, Advocate accepts notice on behalf of respondent No.3-Insurance Company.

4. Learned counsel for the appellants has handed over copy of the paper-book along with relevant record to the learned counsel for respondent Insurance Company-Mr. Suvir Dewan, Advocate.

5. In view of the order dated 18.07.2024 passed in FAO No.1682 of 2007, the Insurance Company is directed to disburse the current scheduled fees to Mr. Suvir Dewan, Advocate, the counsel engaged by this Court in the present case. FAO-2340-2006 (O&M)

1. The present appeal has been preferred against the award dated 06.08.2005 passed in the claim petition filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chandigarh (for short, 'the Tribunal'), whereby the claim petition filed by the appellant/claimant for grant of compensation, was dismissed.

FACTS NOT IN DISPUTE

2. The brief facts of the case are that on 22.01.1999, Lakhbir Singh (now deceased) was riding his bicycle from Chandigarh to his village Paintpur. He was moving at a slow speed on the kachcha (unpaved) portion on the left side of the road. At around 10:40 A.M., a tractor-trolley approached him from behind. The tractor belonged to Paramjit Singh’s brick kiln and was being driven in a rash and negligent manner by respondent No.1. The driver did not blow the horn to alert Lakhbir Singh. While driving, he took his hands off the steering wheel to adjust his towel (parna) tied on his head. In doing so, he lost control over the tractor, which veered off the road onto the kachcha portion and hit Lakhbir Singh’s bicycle from behind. Lakhbir Singh was dragged a considerable distance before the tractor-trolley crashed into a eucalyptus tree and overturned. The accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of respondent No.1.

3. Upon notice of the claim petition, respondents No.1, 2 and 3 appeared and filed their written replies denying the factum of accident/compensation.

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

“1. Whether the respondent No.1 by tractor No.PB-12- 7016 rashly and negligently caused the accident on 22.1.1999 resulting into the death of Lakhbir Singh?

OPP.

2. To what amount of compensation the claimants are entitled, if so, from whom? OPA.

3. Whether respondent No.1 was not possessing a valid driving licence on the day of accident? 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 present appeal.

SUBMISSIONS OF THE LEARNED COUNSELS FOR THE PARTIES 6. The learned counsel for the appellant/claimant contends that the claim petition was dismissed only on the ground that appellant/claimant was not able to prove the involvement of the offending tractor-trolly and the accident had taken place because of rash and negligent driving of tractor trolley by respondent No.1.

7. Per contra, learned counsel for the respond