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

Amit Kumar alias Raju and others ......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA Present: Mr. Kulwant Singh Dhanora, Advocate, for the appellant.

Mr. B.S.Mamli, Advocate, for Mr. R.S.Mamli, Advocate, for respondent No.1.

Mr. Suman Jain, Advocate, for respondent No.4-Insurance Company.

****

SUDEEPTI SHARMA J.

1. The present appeal has been preferred for setting aside the award dated 29.07.2005 passed in the claim petition filed under Sections 166, 140 and 141 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kurukshetra (for short, 'the Tribunal'), whereby claim petition filed by the appellant/claimant, was dismissed.

FACTS NOT IN DISPUTE

2. The brief facts of the case are that on 14.12.2002, at around 7:30 p.m., Baslu Ram and Kamlesh, along with their son, Sukhwinder Singh (since deceased), were traveling from Shastri Market to Braham Sarovar, Kurukshetra. In the meantime, respondent No.1 arrived there on a motorcycle bearing registration No.HYW-9191. Since the appellant/

claimant was already familiar with him, Kamlesh and Sukhwinder Singh sat on the motorcycle, while Baslu Ram followed them on his bicycle. When the motorcycle reached Maharana Pratap Chowk, near Birla Mandir, Thanesar, Sukhwinder Singh, who was sitting on the petrol tank, fell on the road due to rash and negligent driving of respondent No.1. As a result thereof, he lost consciousness and later passed away. The appellant/claimant argue that the accident was caused by the rash and negligent driving of respondent No.1.

3. Upon notice of the claim petition, the respondents appeared and filed their separate replies denying the factum of accident/compensation.

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

“1) Whether the accident in question resulting death of Sukhwinder Singh and injuries to Kamlesh was caused due to rash and negligent driving of motorcycle No.HYW-

9191 by its driver, respondent No.1, as alleged? OPP

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

3) Whether respondent no.1 was not holding a valid and effective driving licence on the alleged date of accident? OPD.

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 LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES

6. Learned counsel for the appellant/claimant contends that the learned Tribunal dismissed the claim petition only on the ground that there was a delay of 01 day in lodging the FIR and the appellant/claimant failed to prove that the accident was caused by rash and negligent driving of respondent No.1-Amit Kumar alias Raju.

7. Per contra, learned counsel for respondents No.1 and 4, however, vehemently argue on the lines of the award dated 29.07.2005 and submit that the award has rightly been dismissed by the learned Tribunal.

Therefore, they pray 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 portion of the award reads as under:-

“ISSUE NO.1:

To begin with, it has been argued by learned counsel for the claimants that on 14.12.2002 at about 7.30 p.m., claimant Smt.Kamlesh alongwith Sukhwinder Singh deceased, her son and Baslu Ram husband of Smt- Kamlesh, were coming from Shashtri market and were going to see Geeta Jayanti festival at Braham Sarover, Kurukshetra. In the meantime respondent no.1 Amit alias Raju who was acquainted with the claimants previously also suddenly came on the motorcycle Hero Honda. Baslu Ram claimant no.1 told his wife claimant no.2 to sit on the motorcycle of respondent no.1 alongwith Sukhwinder Singh. This way Smt. Kamlesh claimant no.2, alongwith her son Sukhwinder Singh deceased sat on the motorcycle. Claimant no.1 followed them