IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision :27.10.2025 SEEMA AND OTHERS ... APPELLANTS VERSUS JAIPAL AND ANOTHER ...RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PARMOD GOYAL Present: Mr. Chanderhas Yadav, Advocate and Mr. Amandeep Singh, Advocate for the appellants-claimants.

Mr. Sarthak Mehta, Advocate for Mr. P.H.S. Pannu, Advocate for respondent No. 2-Insurance Company.

****

PARMOD GOYAL, J. (ORAL)

1. Being aggrieved by the award dated 22.05.2022 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jhajjar (hereinafter referred to as ‘Tribunal’), whereby their claim petition was dismissed, the appellants-claimants have approached this Court by way of the present First Appeal.

2. The appellants had preferred a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, asserting that the deceased, Jai Bhagwan, who was a Raj Mishtri by profession, had gone to the house of Mange Ram on a motorcycle bearing registration No. HR-14K-3184 on 25.09.2020. It was alleged that at around 8:15 a.m., near Village Aurangpur, Jhajjar, a tractor bearing registration No. HR-14C-0419 (hereinafter referred to as “offending vehicle”), being driven by Respondent No. 1 in a rash and negligent manner at high speed, directly hit the motorcycle of the deceased, resulting in grievous injuries and, ultimately, his death. It was further asserted that Rajesh Kumar, upon receiving information about the accident, reached the spot and found Jai Bhagwan lying unconscious. He shifted Jai Bhagwan to General Hospital, Jhajjar, from where he was referred to PGIMS, Rohtak. Unfortunately, Jai Bhagwan succumbed to his injuries two days later, on 26.09.2020, during treatment. An FIR No. 302, dated 26.09.2020, under Sections 279 and 337 IPC, was registered at Police Station Sadar, Jhajjar, on the statement of Rajesh Kumar against an unknown vehicle for causing the accident and the death of the deceased.

3. Respondent No. 1 denied the accident in its entirety and claimed false implication. Respondent No. 2 also denied the accident, pleaded false implication, and stated that it was not liable to pay compensation.

4. Following issues were framed by learned Tribunal:

1. Whether the accident, resulting into the death of Jai Bhagwan son of Ram Chander, had taken place due to the rash and negligent driving of vehicle, i.e. Tractor bearing registration No.HR-14Q-0419 by respondent No. 1, as alleged? OPP.

2. If Issue No. 1 is proved in affirmative, whether the petitioners are entitled to claim any compensation, if so, to what amount and from whom? OPP.

3. Whether respondent no.1 was not holding a valid and effective driving license on the date of alleged accident, if so, its effect? OPR-2.

4. Whether respondent no.1 had contravened the terms and conditions of insurance policy, if so, its effect? OPR-2.

5. Relief.

5. On consideration of the evidence led by the appellants-claimants,

Issue No. 1 was decided against the claimants, holding that they had failed to

prove the involvement of the offending vehicle in the accident. Consequently,

Issues No. 2 to 4 were held to be redundant, and the claim petition was dismissed. 6. Perusal of the evidence led by the appellants-claimants shows that, in order to prove the involvement of the offending vehicle, the appellants relied on the evidence of PW-2 Rajesh Kumar (nephew of the deceased), who had found the deceased unconscious, shifted him to the hospital, and lodged the FIR in the present case on the day following the accident. They have also relied upon the evidence of PW-4 ASI Jagdeep Singh, who, after conducting an investigation, concluded that Respondent No. 1 was involved in the accident and filed a challan against him in criminal court arising out of FIR Ex. P-10.

7. On consideration of the evidence and the reasons recorded by the Tribunal, I find no fault with the conclusions drawn by the Tribunal. In the present case, it is clear from both the pleadings and the evidence of PW-2 that he did not witness the accident. It is