209 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 23.09.2025 Kuldeep Singh ..Appellant Versus Amarjeet Singh and others ..Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANDEEP PANNU Present: Mr. Bhag Singh, Advocate for the appellant Mr. Varun Sharma, Advocate for respondent no.3-Insurance Company MANDEEP PANNU, J.

1. This appeal has been filed by the claimant–appellant Kuldeep Singh against the award dated 21.09.2001 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ambala (hereinafter referred to as ‘Tribunal’) whereby the claim petition filed by the appellant was dismissed.

Facts of the Case

2. The case of the claimant before the Tribunal was that on 05.10.1997, he was driving his Maruti car bearing registration number PJR–7484 from Rajpura towards his village Mohra. When he had covered about 5–6 kilometers from Rajpura towards Ambala on the GT Road, at about 6:00/7:00 P.M., a truck bearing registration number HR–06–9125, driven by respondent No. 1 in a rash, negligent and zig-

zag manner, came from the Ambala side on the wrong side of the road and struck against his vehicle. The appellant, who was driving on the correct left side at a moderate speed, suffered multiple injuries and remained admitted in hospital from 05.10.1997 to 11.10.1997. He ₹

claimed that he had spent more than 2,50,000/- on treatment, transportation, and incidental expenses, and on account of the accident, he suffered permanent disability, resulting in heavy physical, psychological, and commercial loss. It was further pleaded that respondent Nos. 1 and 2 were driver and owner of the offending truck respectively, and the vehicle was duly insured with respondent No. 3, the insurance company, and hence all were jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation.

3. Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 contested the petition by denying the negligence and set up the plea that the accident was not caused by the vehicle in question. Respondent No. 3, the insurance company, also resisted the claim, submitting that there was no liability on it as no accident involving the insured vehicle had occurred and further alleged collusion between the claimant and respondent Nos. 1 and 2.

4. On the pleadings of the parties, issues were framed and evidence was led. After considering the material, the Tribunal dismissed the claim petition by observing that the circumstances clearly established that respondent Nos. 1 and 2 were in collusion with the claimant and had attempted to dupe the insurance company.

Submissions

5. Learned counsel for the appellant has assailed the impugned award by submitting that the Tribunal has gravely erred in dismissing the claim petition despite the fact that there was cogent evidence regarding the involvement of the offending truck. It is submitted that the compromise Ex.PX entered into between the appellant and the owner of the truck was duly signed by the driver as well, and this clearly established the involvement of the vehicle. It was further argued that the Tribunal erred in ignoring the statement of Harbhajan Singh (RW3), the owner, who admitted the execution of Ex.R2 but tried to retract from the same. It was contended that the finding of collusion is based on conjectures and surmises and that the dismissal of the claim petition has resulted in serious miscarriage of justice.

6. Per contra, learned counsel for the insurance company has supported the award and argued that the circumstances noted by the Tribunal unmistakably establish collusion between the claimant and respondent Nos. 1 and 2. It is submitted that the conduct of the parties, the absence of prompt reporting to the police, the contradictory stand of the owner, and the non-production of material evidence including the testimony of the nephew of the claimant, who was travelling in the car, all go to show that the claim petition was filed with the object of obtaining wrongful gain by fastening liability upon the insurer. Learned counsel, therefore, submitted that the awar