SUNENA

2025.07.11 09:57 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

223 FAO-4123-2011(O&M)

Date of decision: 09.07.2025 Amarjit Kaur ...Appellant(s)

Vs.

Sukhwinder Singh & Others ...Respondent(s)

CORAM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA Present:- Mr. Vipin Mahajan, Advocate for the appellant.

Mr. Ashwini Talwar, Advocate Ms. Pratiksha Sharma, Advocate Mr. Nikhil Sehrawat, Advocate for respondent No.3/Insurance Company.

***

NIDHI GUPTA, J.

CM-15524-CII-2011 This is an application under Section 5 of Limitation Act for condonation of delay of 28 days in filing the appeal.

After going through the contents of the application, which is supported by affidavit of the applicant, the same is allowed subject to all just exceptions and delay of 28 days in filing the present appeal is condoned.

MAIN CASE Present appeal has been filed by the claimant against the Award dated 08.12.2010 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Gurdaspur (hereinafter referred to as “the Tribunal”) whereby the Claim Petition No.143 dated 01.06.2007 filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”), has been dismissed.

Appellant is the widow of deceased Tarlok Singh.

2. Learned Tribunal on the basis of pleadings and oral & documentary evidence adduced before it concluded that the appellant had been unable to prove that the deceased Tarlok Singh had died due to the injuries suffered by him in a motor vehicular accident that took place on 11.03.2007 due to the rash and negligent driving of motorcycle bearing registration No.PB-06-D-6384 (hereinafter referred to as “the offending vehicle”) by respondent No.1. The offending vehicle was owned by respondent No.2 and insured by respondent No.3.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant inter alia submits that the learned Tribunal was in patent error in dismissing the Claim Petition filed by the appellant as it failed to appreciate that after the death of her husband, the appellant was in great mental trauma and agony. It was for this reason that there was some delay in registration of the FIR (Ex.C2). It is submitted that the appellant had examined herself as CW1 and had proved the FIR. The Death Certificate of the deceased was also duly proved by CW3 and CW4. In view of these facts, learned Tribunal was in error in dismissing the Claim Petition only on the ground that there was delay of 1 month and 12 days in registration of the FIR. It is submitted that mere delay in registration of FIR is not fatal for the case. It is accordingly prayed that the present appeal be allowed, and the impugned Award be set aside.

4. Learned counsel for respondent No.3/Insurance Company opposes the prayer made on behalf of the appellant and submits that the impugned Award suffers from no error. It is pointed out that the appellant had even failed to produce the Post-Mortem Report of the deceased. Moreover, there was unexplained delay of 42 days in registration of the FIR. Even the Claim Petition is misconceived as on 11.03.2007, motorcycle of respondent No.1 had slipped on account of rainwater on the road and respondent No.1 had suffered injuries for which he was admitted in hospital. As such, there was no rash and negligent driving by respondent No.1. Learned counsel accordingly prays for dismissal of the present appeal.

5. No other argument is made on behalf of the appellant.

6. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the case file in great detail. I find no merit in the submissions made on behalf of the appellant.

7. Briefly stated the facts as pleaded by the appellant/claimant in the Claim Petition are that on 11.03.2007 at about 6.30 pm deceased Tarlok Singh alongwith his wife i.e. Claimant were coming from village Slempur after purchasing a buffalo. They were coming on a bicycle and on foot. Wife of the deceased was a little behind the deceased. When they reached near turn of village Peeran Bagh, Respondent No.1 came from backside, driving his motorcycle at a very high speed, rashly,