IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision :27.08.2025 SMT.SHIELA DEVI AND OTHERS ... APPELLANTS VERSUS RAJ KUMAR AND OTHERS ...RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PARMOD GOYAL Present: Mr. Brijesh Kumar, Advocate for the appellant.

Mr. Shashi Kumar Yadav, Advocate and Mr. Ankit Kumar Sangwan, Advocate for the respondent-Insurance Company.

****

PARMOD GOYAL, J.

Present first appeal has been preferred by claimants, who are aggrieved by award dated 03.05.2000 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jhajjar (hereinafter referred to as ‘Tribunal’), vide which claim petition preferred by the claimants was dismissed.

2. In their claim petition, claimants-appellants had sought compensation of Rs. 5,00,000/- on account of death of Rajbir, husband of claimant no. 1, father of claimant nos. 2 and 3 and son of claimant nos. 4 and 5, on the ground that on 12.07.1992 at about 10.00 p.m., when he was proceeding for investigation of a criminal matter and had reached near bus stand Bahadurgarh on National Highway No. 10, a truck bearing registration No. HYF-4270 driven by respondent No. 1 Raj Kumar rashly and negligently hit his motorcycle. The accident was stated to have been witnessed by Dalip. Deceased had suffered grievous injuries in the accident. He was initially taken to Civil Hospital, Bahadurgarh but was referred to MCH, Rohtak, however, he succumbed to the injuries suffered by him in the accident. That FIR No. 216 dated 11.07.1992 under Sections 279, 337 and 304-A IPC was registered with Police Station Sadar, Bahadurgarh.

3. Respondent No. 2 on notice, appeared and filed written statement claiming the claim petition to be time barred. Respondent No. 3 in his written statement denied involvement of truck asserted accident to be a hit and run case and claimed that respondent No. 1 was not holding valid driving license.

4. From pleadings, following issues were framed.

“1. Whether the accident in question took place due to rash and negligent driving of Raj Kumar respondent. No. 1 while driving the truck bearing registration No. HYF-4270 owned by and during the course of employment of respondent No. 2 and insured with respondent. No. 3, in which Rajbir son of Jogi Ram had died ? OPP.

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

3. Whether respondent No. 1 was holding a valid driving licence at the time of accident ? OPR3.

4. Relief.”

5. In order to prove the accident dated 12.07.1992, the claimants had examined PW-2 Dalip, who asserted to have seen the accident. He claimed that on 12.07.1992 at about 10.00 p.m. he was waiting for bus, in the meanwhile, a truck came from the side of Rohtak whereas motorcycle had come from the side of Delhi. The motorcycle was being driven at normal speed and was hit by the truck. The motorcyclist had suffered injuries and he was taken by the passersby to the Civil Hospital, Bahadurgarh. He disclosed name of injured to be Rajbir. He, however, in cross examination admitted that he had neither noted the registration number of the truck nor could he see the truck driver. PW-3 Sube Singh also claimed to have witnessed the accident. He also claimed that offending truck, which was driven by respondent No. 1, in a rash and negligent manner had hit the motorcycle. He further asserted that truck driver had also suffered injuries. Truck driver was also taken to hospital along with deceased Rajbir. He also claimed that truck driver had disclosed his name as Raj Kumar. He, however, in his cross examination, admitted that no report was lodged with the police regarding accident by him.

6. Respondents, on the other hand had examined RW-1 Om Parkash, Deputy Record Keeper, Judicial Record Room, Sessions Court, Rohtak, who had produced the case file pertaining to case titled as ‘State Versus Subhash’ bearing FIR No. 216 dated 11.07.1992 registered at Police Station Sadar, Bahadurgarh and had placed copy of FIR as well as reports of the mec