##PAGE1##

FAO-4017-2005 - 1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

104 FAO-4017-2005 Date of decision: 06.04.2026

KRANTI KUMAR ....APPELLANT VERSUS

BALJIT & ANR. ...RESPONDENT CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHVIR SINGH RATHOR

Present: Mr. Gaurav Antwal, Amicus Curiae for the appellant.

Mr. R.C. Gupta, Advocate for respondent No.2-Insurance Company. YASHVIR SINGH RATHOR. J.(Oral)

1. The matter is being taken up in the post lunch session.

2. This appeal has been instituted against the Award dated 01.06.2005 passed by MACT (hereinafter referred to as ‘Tribunal’), Narnaul, under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Act’) for grant of compensation on account of injuries suffered by him in a roadside accident which took place on 17.11.2004, vide which the claim petition

has been dismissed.

3. The file of the present case has got burnt in a fire incident in the High Court Branch. However parties have placed on record copies of grounds of appeal and award. Thus, the present appeal has to be decided on the basis of the

facts and evidence discussed by the Tribunal in the impugned award.

4. As per version of claimant, he was going to his house after closing his shop on 17.11.2004 at about 7:00-8:00 P.M., while riding as a pillion rider on motorcycle bearing No.HR-35-C-0851, which was being driven by his brother Baljit at a normal speed and on the left side of the road. When the

VISHAL VARDHAN

2026.04.08 18:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

FAO-4017-2005 - 2

motorcycle reached near Old Mandi, Narnaul, one cow suddenly came running and started crossing the road and in order to save the cow, their motorcycle struck against the cow and he fell down and suffered injuries. Prior to the accident, he used to earn Rs.40,000/- per annum and was 34 years of age. He took treatment from a private doctor and then he was taken to Civil Hospital, Narnaul and thereafter, to Dr. Goel at Pooja Hospital Narnaul and then to Jaipur. He spent Rs.1,00,000/- on his treatment and he is still under treatment. Appellant claimed a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- as compensation for the injuries suffered by

him.

5. Respondent No.1 in his written statement admitted the contents of

the petition and the factum of accident was also admitted.

6. Respondent No.2-New India Insurance Company Limited in its written statement has alleged that there is collusion between the claimant and respondent No.1. It is further submitted that the driver was not having a valid and effective driving licence on the date of accident. The remaining contents of the petition have been refuted to be wrong and dismissal of the claim petition

was sought.

7. From the pleadings of parties, following issues were framed by the

learned Tribunal:-

“1. Whether the petitioner received injuries in a road-side accident which took place on 17.11.2004 at about 7/8 P.M. in the area of Old Mandi Narnaul on account of being struck

against a cow, as alleged? OPP.

2. If issue No.1 is proved, whether the petitioner is entitled to any amount as compensation, if so to what amount from

whom? OPP.

3. Whether the petition is quite vague, false, frivolous and indefinite, as alleged? OPR.

4. Whether the petitioner has no locus-standi to file this

VISHAL VARDHAN

2026.04.08 18:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

FAO-4017-2005 - 3

petition? OPR

5. Whether the petition has been filed by the petitioner in collusion with respondent No.1? OPR2.

6. Whether the driver of the offending vehicle was not having a valid and genuine driving licence at the time of accident. If

so its effect? OPR2

7. Whether the petition is not maintainable in the present form?

OPR1

8. Relief.”

8. Thereafter, the parties led evidence in support of their case.

9. The Tribunal, after going through the pleadings and evidence on file came to the conclusion that accident in question had taken place on account of use of vehicle resulting in grievous injuries to the claimant as he had suffered fr