IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Surinder Kaur & OTHERS …Appellants Versus Dr. Mohan Dev Saini & OTHERS …Respondents Reserved on: 13.02.2026 Pronounced on: 16.02.2026 CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA Argued by:- Mr. Naresh Kumar, Advocate For the appellants.

Mr. Rajbir Wasu, Advocate For respondent No.2.

DEEPAK GUPTA, J.

This appeal is directed against the award dated 06.11.1997 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Hoshiarpur, whereby the claim petition filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 was disposed of by granting compensation of ₹50,000/- only under the principle of no-fault liability, holding that negligence on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle had not been established.

2. Pleadings:The admitted factual position is that on 20.12.1993 at about 6.30 PM, Amarjit Singh (since deceased) was travelling in Maruti Car bear- ing registration No. DL1C-7370 from Bunga to Hoshiarpur. The car was being driven by respondent No.1 Dr. Mohan Dev and was owned by his wife, respon- dent No.3. On the way, near village BhikOwal on the Dasuya-Hoshiarpur road, the vehicle struck against a Safeda tree. Amarjit Singh sustained multiple injuries and, despite prolonged treatment at Civil Hospital, Hoshiarpur and thereafter at CMC Ludhiana, succumbed on 08.03.1994. The widow and two minor children filed the present petition alleging that the accident was the result of rash and negligent driving of respondent No.1 and also on account of failure of brakes and loss of control.

3.1 Respondent No.1–driver contested the claim by asserting that the petitioners were estopped from maintaining the claim, as the widow had earlier submitted an application stating that the accident occurred due to mechanical defect in the vehicle. He pleaded that while driving the car at a slow speed near village BhikOwal, the steering wheel suddenly jammed and, upon applying the brakes, he found that they had failed, resulting in the vehicle striking against a tree. He maintained that the accident was caused solely due to sudden mechan- ical failure and not due to any rash or negligent driving on his part. He further stated that he himself sustained multiple injuries, became unconscious, and re- mained admitted in CMC Ludhiana for eight days. It was also pleaded that the deceased, being his employee, used to travel with him in the car, and that the present claim was false and frivolous.

3.2 Respondent No.3 i.e. owner of the car took the same stand.

3.3 Respondent No.2 i.e. insurance company in its separate written statement alleged that driver did not have any valid driving licence and therefore, insurance company had no liability to pay the compensation amount.

4. Amendment application :It has come on record during the course of evidence that the correct registration number of the offending vehicle was DL1C-7370 and not DL1C-7390 as mentioned in the claim petition. An application bearing CM-11982-CII of 2016 under Order VI Rule 17 CPC has also been moved before this Court seeking correction of the registration number.

5. However, since there is no dispute whatsoever regarding the iden- tity or involvement of the vehicle bearing registration No. DL1C-7370, which was admittedly being driven by respondent No.1, owned by respondent No.3 and in- sured with respondent No.2 at the relevant time, this Court does not find it nec- essary to formally allow the amendment. The matter shall, therefore, be consid- ered and decided on the basis that the offending vehicle was Maruti Car No.

DL1C-7370.

6. Tribunal Findings :The Tribunal, after appreciating the evidence, discarded the testimony of AW2 and AW4, who were projected as eyewitnesses, and came to the conclusion that rash and negligent driving had not been proved. At the same time, it noticed that the accident occurred due to brake failure and confined the award to compensation under Section 140 of the Act under no fault liability.

7.1 Contentions of appellants – claima