IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: August 26, 2025 Devinder Singh ...Appellant VERSUS Shiv Parshad and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ARCHANA PURI Present: Mr.Vishal Gupta, Advocates for the appellant.

Mr.Ravinder Malik (Ravi), Advocate for respondent No.1.

Respondent No.2 proceeded against ex-parte.

Mr.D.P.Gupta, Advocate for respondent No.3.

****

ARCHANA PURI, J.

The present appeal has been filed by the appellant-claimant, thereby, assailing the judgment of dismissal of the claim petition filed by the appellant-claimant for seeking compensation, on account of the injuries sustained by him, in a motor vehicular accident, which took place on

26.03.2005.

The material facts, as pleaded in the claim petition, are as follows:-

That, on 26.03.2005, the appellant-claimant along with Vicky, Munish and other friends, had gone to Gurudwara Ponta Sahib. He was coming back, while pillion on motorcycle bearing registration No.HR-02M-3649, being driven by Vicky. At about 5.00 p.m., when they reached near Anaj Mandi, Chhachhrauli, respondent No.1-Shiv Parshad, while driving his motorcycle bearing registration No.HR-02L-6304, came from behind and struck the motorcycle driven by Vicky, as a result whereof, both Vicky and claimant fell down. The appellant-claimant sustained multiple injuries. He was brought to his house by Vicky and from there, his father took him to Goel Hospital, Jagadhri, where he was operated for fracture, in the left leg. FIR No.58 under Section 279 and 338 IPC was registered at Police Station Chhachhrauli on 05.04.2005.

Upon notice, respondents made appearance. Respondent No.1-

Shiv Parshad had asserted that he was driving the motorcycle in a proper manner and on correct side of the road. However, the claimant, while overtaking the motorcycle, struck against it, as a result whereof, both of them fell down and sustained multiple and grievous injuries. Consequently, it was pleaded that the claimant himself being a tort-feaser, is not entitled to compensation.

Respondent No.2, in the reply, had denied about the accident to have ever taken place with the offending vehicle. However, at the time of arguments, respondent No.2 was proceeded against ex-parte.

Respondent No.3-insurance company, in the reply, asserted about the claim petition to have been filed in collusion with respondents No.1 and 2, with the purpose to extract money from the insurance company. Besides the same, also it was asserted that driver of the offending vehicle was not holding valid driving licence, fitness certificate and registration certificate. Defence available under Sections 147, 149 and 170 of the Act, were also taken.

From the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed:-

“1. Whether the accident resulting in injuries to Devinder Singh was the result of rash and negligent driving of vehicle no.HR-02-L-6304 by respondent no.1?OPP.

2. If issue no.1 is proved, then to what amount of compensation the petitioner is entitled to and from whom?OPP.

3. Whether the driver of the offending vehicle was not possessing a valid and legal driving licence at the material time, if so, to what effect?OPR.

4. Relief.”

To substantiate his claim, the claimant himself stepped into witness box as PW-6 and further also examined various other witnesses. However, certain documents were tendered into evidence by the respondents and the evidence was closed.

On appraisal of the evidence, brought on record, learned Tribunal considered Satya Narain, who was firstly nominated as driver of the offending motorcycle bearing registration No.HR-02L-6304, having been substituted with his brother Shiv Parshad, who allegedly drove the offending motorcycle, at the relevant time of accident. On this account, learned Tribunal reached the conclusion that the claimant has miserably failed to prove that in fact, respondent No.1-Shiv Parshad was driving the offending motorcycle, at the relevant time and therefore, the question of rashness and neg