IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH (106) FAO No. 2505 of 1999 Reserved on: 16.09.2025 Pronounced on:19.09.2025 Ritu Saini and Others … Appellants Versus Rai Singh and Others … Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE VIRINDER AGGARWAL Present: Mr. Robin Dutt, Advocate, for the appellants.

Mr. Arvinder Arora, Advocate, for the Respondent No.1 and 3(a).

Mr. Jatinder Singh Chahal, Advocate, for the Respondent No.2(iv)(a) and (b).

Mr. Paul S. Saini, Advocate, for the Respondent No.4-Insurance Company.

*****

VIRINDER AGGARWAL, J.

1. The present appeal has been preferred by the claimants assailing the award dated 14.06.1999 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ambala, whereby the claim petition filed by the appellants under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, seeking compensation on account of death of Bansi Lal in a motor vehicular accident was dismissed.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

2. On 17.11.1994, Bansi Lal was going to his village on scooter (CHT-2985) and a tractor-trolley bearing registration No. HYE-6510, driven rashly and negligently by respondent No.1, struck with him and caused fatal injuries to him. Upon which he succumbed to the injuries in Civil Hospital, Naraingarh. Thereafter, the claim petition was filed by present appellant Ritu Saini as the adopted daughter and dependent of the deceased, seeking compensation for Rs.10,00,000 on account of death of Bansi Lal.

3. Upon appreciation of pleadings and evidence, the learned Tribunal returned categorical findings against the claimants. It was held that the claimants had failed to prove that Bansi Lal died in a motor accident involving tractor-trolley No. HYE-6510 allegedly driven by respondent No.1. The Tribunal noticed contradictions in the testimony of witnesses, absence of reliable corroboration, and inconsistencies between the FIR and the oral evidence. The FIR registered at the instance of the complainant did not disclose the particulars of the driver or even the vehicle with sufficient clarity. The subsequent attempt to introduce the offending tractor was viewed as an afterthought, unsupported by cogent corroboration.

4. Learned Tribunal further noted that the claim of adoption set up in favour of Ritu Saini was not proved. No adoption deed, no proof of ceremony, nor any independent evidence was produced. Only an application form showing Ritu as daughter of Bansi Lal was tendered, which was insufficient. Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the claim petition in toto. On these findings, the learned Tribunal held that the claimants failed to establish either the accident due to rash and negligent driving of respondent No.1 or their own locus standi as legal representatives of the deceased. Consequently, the claim petition was dismissed.

CONTENTIONS

5. Learned counsel for the appellants has argued that the that the learned Tribunal erred in dismissing the claim petition on hyper-technical grounds. It is submitted that the learned Tribunal erred in discarding the testimony of PW4 Shiv Kumar, who is eye-witnesses to the occurrence. Also, the FIR Ex.P2 and other material on record supported the case of the appellants, and that minor contradictions should not have resulted in complete dismissal. Further. It is further urged that the learned Tribunal adopted an unduly strict approach in rejecting the claim of adoption, even though oral evidence supported it.

6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents supported the award of the Tribunal, submitting that the claimants had failed to discharge the basic burden of proof. It was argued that the FIR itself was vague, the involvement of the vehicle was doubtful, and the claim of adoption was wholly unsubstantiated. OBSERVATIONS AND FINDINGS

7. I have carefully considered the rival submissions and examined the record. The award shows that the learned Tribunal did not dismiss the claim petition lightly but only after noting serious infirmities in the claimants’ case.

8. At the threshold, the claimants failed to