IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 29.10.2025 Parshant Vats ...Appellant(s)

Vs.

Ravinder and others ...Respondent(s)

CORAM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA Present:- Mr. Mahesh Inder Preet, Advocate with Mr. Naresh Kaushik, Advocate for the appellant.

***

NIDHI GUPTA, J.

The present appeal has been filed by the injured-claimant against the dismissal of his claim petition by the learned MACT, Sonepat (hereinafter ‘the Tribunal’), vide Award dated 13.03.2020 passed in MACP Case No. 98 dated 12.02.2018 filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

2. It was the case of the appellant that he had suffered injuries in a motor vehicular accident that took place on 27.07.2017 at about 1:30 p.m. due to the rashness and negligence of a Tractor bearing registration No. HR-79-5972 (hereinafter “the alleged offending vehicle”) whose Driver is respondent No.1; owner is respondent No.2; and insurer is respondent No.3.

3. Vide the impugned Award, learned Tribunal dismissed the claim petition of the appellant as the learned Tribunal found that “false witnesses have been introduced in this case to grab compensation and this court is of the view that the offending vehicle was not involved in this case and false case has been registered only to take compensation and false vehicle has been introduced. Accordingly, petitioner has failed to connect the involvement of offending vehicle in the present accident, in which he had sustained injuries.”

4. It is inter alia submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that the claimant was operated and had received serious grievous injuries and has become 99% disabled and has incurred expenditure of more than Rs.20,00,000/- on the treatment, medicines, special diet, transportation and attendant. Appellant is unable to do his regular pursuits of his life. Prior to the accident the appellant was running M/s. K.SR Food plaza used to earn Rs.48500/-per month but due to accident he is not able to work and has become 100% disabled.

5. It is averred in para 5 of the present Grounds of Appeal that: -

“5. That the FIR of the accident was lodged by the pilon rider Pradeep sitting on the conductor seat at the time of accident of the car driven by the appellant. But the learned Tribunal on the ground of delay has rejected the claim suspecting on the varsity of the statement of the complainant.”

6. It is contended that learned Tribunal had failed to properly appreciate the evidence on file. Merely due to delay in lodging the FIR, claim cannot be rejected as the claimant remained “admitted and unconscious for long time in hospital as proved on record.”

7. It is accordingly prayed that the present appeal be allowed;

and impugned Award dated 13.03.2020be set aside.

8. No other argument is raised on behalf of the appellant. I have heard ld. counsel and perused the case file in detail. I find no merit in the submissions advanced on behalf of the appellant.

9. Facts of the case as pleaded by the appellant in the Claim Petition as recorded by the Tribunal in para 2 of the impugned Award are as follows:-

"That on 27.07.2017, at about 1:30 PM, petitioner/ claimant was driving his car bearing no. HR-79-3132 and Pardeep son of Sh. Jagdish, resident of Kharkhoda was sitting on the conductor seat in the said car, when they reached near the water works at Rohtak Bypass, then driver of unknown car came from back side in a rash and negligent manner and he turned suddenly his vehicle towards their car. Petitioner tried to save his life and car and in the process, his car struck against the tractor bearing No. HR-79-5972 which was parked at the road in a wrong way without obeying the traffic rules and Parshant became unconscious due to this accident and he was admitted to Nav Jiwan Hospital, Rohtak, in the unconscious conditions and he was referred to Jaipur Golden Hospital New Delhi from Nave Jiwan Hospital due to serious condition of claimant/ petitioner on 31.07.2017 and he was admitted to Jaipur Golde