IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

253 FAO-5694-2023(O&M)

Date of decision: 11.09.2025 Savita & Others ...Appellant(s)

Vs.

Vinay Pal & Another ...Respondent(s)

***

CORAM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA Present:- Mr. Prashant Singh Chauhan, Advocate for the appellants.

***

NIDHI GUPTA, J.

Present appeal has been filed by claimants against the dismissal of their Claim Petition No.892 dated 29.05.2018 filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act (hereinafter “the Act”) by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Rewari (hereinafter ‘the learned Tribunal’) vide Award dated 22.08.2023. The 4 claimants are the widow and 3 minor children of the deceased Subhash Kumar.

2. The case as pleaded by the appellants in their Claim Petition before the Tribunal as recorded in the impugned Award reads as follows:-

“2. The claimants have submitted that on 28.9.2017, the deceased Subhash Kumar was going to village Jarthal from village Sangwari on his motorcycle. When he had reached near the Panchor Canal, tractor JOHN Deere with trolly bearing Engine No.PY3029D422507 Chassis No.IPY5036DPHA003252 was parked on the road without any reason. The deceased Subhash Kumar collided with the tractor trolly. After the accident, the deceased was taken to Trauma Center, Rewari from where he was referred to Matrika Hospital, Rewari and thereafter he referred to SDMH, Jaipur, where he declared dead during the treatment. The matter was reported to the police and FIR No.341 dated 9.10.2017, under Sections 283, 337 IPC, 304-A IPC was registered at Police Station Kasola against the respondent no.1 i.e. driver of the offending vehicle.”

3. Learned Tribunal on the basis of pleadings and oral & documentary evidence adduced by the parties concluded that the claimants had failed to prove the involvement and rash and negligent driving of the alleged offending tractor for causing the accident in question, which led to the death of Subhash Kumar on 17.10.2017.

4. Learned counsel for the appellants assails the impugned Award by submitting that the Ld. Tribunal while dismissing the claim petition of the claimants/appellants failed to take into consideration the evidence adduced by the claimants which stands un-rebutted. The Ld. Tribunal had failed to appreciate the fact that there is an admission of the accident by the Insurance Company. Pertinently, in the cross examination of PW-6 there is admission and there is no evidence in rebuttal. The Ld. Tribunal while passing the impugned award had failed to consider the fact that the ruqa Ex.P-61 by hospital. Thus, just because the statement of complainant is at later stage, the victim cannot be made to suffer for his delay. Further, the Ld. Tribunal did not appreciate that at the time of accident the deceased was healthy and was Photographer and Agriculturist and was earning @ Rs.25,000/- per month. Therefore, Ld. Tribunal ought to have awarded the claim amount as claimed in the petition or above.

5. It is further submitted that the learned Tribunal failed to appreciate that the driver of the offending vehicle is facing trial; that the claimants have proved their case on the preponderance of probabilities; and that the driver has not even stepped into the witness box. It is accordingly prayed that the impugned Award be set aside.

6. No other argument is made on behalf of the appellants.

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

8. First and foremost, no error can be found in the impugned Award as it is the own pleaded case of the appellants that it was the deceased Subhash Kumar who had collided with the tractor trolly from behind. To counter this, ld. counsel for the appellants has submitted that the accident had taken place as the offending tractor had braked suddenly. However, as per the Rules of the Road Regulations, 1989, the deceased was required to maintain safe distance from the vehicle in front, which is the offending t