IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 03.09.2025 Sushma and others ...Appellant(s)

Vs.

Jai Vindra Kumar Sharma @ Jai Vindra Sharma and others ...Respondent(s)

CORAM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA Present:- Mr. Abhishek Pundir, Advocate for Mr. Mohan Singh Rana, Advocate for the appellants.

Mr. Gurqurban Singh, Advocate for Mr. Vishal Aggarwal, Advocate for respondent No.4-Insurance Co.

***

NIDHI GUPTA, J.

The present appeal has been filed by the claimants against dismissal of their claim petition by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Gurugram (hereinafter “the learned Tribunal”) vide Award dated 21.08.2019 passed in MACT Case No.43 dated 31.05.2018 filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, (hereinafter “the Act”). The 5 claimants are the widow, 2 minor children, and parents of deceased Anil.

2. The case pleaded by the appellants in their claim petition is that on 8.6.2016 around 4.00 p.m. deceased Anil was going on his motor cycle from Pataudi to his house and when he reached ahead of village Rampura, in the meantime, a car bearing registration No.HR-26BA-3744 (hereinafter ‘the offending vehicle’) being driven by respondent No.1 in a rash and negligent manner and at a very high speed came from village Jataula and directly hit the motor cycle of Anil, since deceased, and sped away from the spot. Anil fell down on the side along with his motorcycle. Complainant Pawan noted down the registration number of the alleged offending vehicle as HR-26BA-3744. Thereafter, he managed a private vehicle and shifted injured to Lotus Hospital, Gurugram, where after first aid he was shifted to Ram Manohar Lohia Hospital, New Delhi. He informed the family members of injured and on his statement FIR No. 349 dated 5.9.2016 was registered at Police Station Pataudi, Gurugram for commission of offences punishable under Sections 279,304A of Indian Penal Code.

3. It was further pleaded that the deceased at the time of death was 35 years of age. He was working as Field Assistant Packet with M/s Primo Integrated Service Pvt. Ltd, New Delhi on monthly salary of Rs.15,665/-plus over time. He was sole bread earner of the family, but due to his untimely death, the claimants have suffered great mental shock, agony, financial loss as now they have no source of income. An amount of Rs.6 lac is claimed to have spent on the treatment and last rites of the deceased. It is, therefore, prayed that a compensation to the tune of Rs.50 lac be awarded along with interest @ 18% p.a.

4. Learned Tribunal upon appraisal of the pleadings as well as oral and documentary evidence adduced by the parties, concluded that the appellants had failed to prove the involvement of the alleged offending vehicle in causing the accident dated 08.06.2016. Hence, had dismissed the claim petition.

5. Before proceeding further with the case, it may first be pointed out that the present Appeal is of the year 2019. However, notice has not yet been issued in the same, as the matter was first listed on 09.11.2022 on which date, it was adjourned at request of learned proxy counsel for the appellants. Thereafter, matter was listed yesterday i.e. 02.09.2025; whereupon in the first round, none had appeared on behalf of the appellants. In the second round also, as none had appeared and as matter was of 2019, this Court had heard learned counsel for respondent No. 4 and dismissed the Appeal. However, subsequently, upon request made by learned proxy counsel for the appellants the matter was adjourned to today purely to accommodate the learned arguing counsel. However, even today request for adjournment has been made by learned proxy counsel for the appellants. The matter was passed over in the first round. However, even in the second round, it is stated that arguing counsel is not available as he is unable to come because of heavy rain showers. Learned proxy counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants has further refused to address arguments on merits and fu