IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 09.03.2026 Rama Devi …Appellant Versus Balbir Kaur and others …Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIRINDER AGGARWAL Present: Mr. Anuj Y.Attri, Advocate for the Appellant.

Mr. Deepak Suri, Advocate for the Respondent No. 3/Insurance Company.

*****

VIRINDER AGGARWAL,J. (ORAL)

1. The present appeal has been preferred by the claimant–appellant challenging the award dated 14.03.2005 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Rohtak, whereby the claim petition filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 seeking compensation on account of death of Vijay Kumar in a motor vehicular accident was dismissed.

BACKGROUND FACTS

2. The brief facts of the case are that on 04.10.2001, Vijay Kumar (since deceased), aged about 35 years was driving a trailer bearing registration No. HR-35F-7281, towards Mumbai from S.R. company, Hajira, loaded with coal. It is the case of the appellant that the deceased was accompanied by a co-driver in another truck No. HR-32B-0016, with Partap Singh driving a third truck behind them. At about 4:00 A.M., when the vehicles reached near the Menure area on the highway, a lorry bearing registration No. DL-1G-3595, allegedly being driven by respondent No.2 in a rash and negligent manner, came from the opposite direction and collided head-on with the trailer driven by the deceased. As a result of the said accident, Vijay Kumar sustained grievous injuries and later succumbed to them. Consequently, the claimants filed a claim petition before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Rohtak, seeking compensation on account of the death of Vijay Kumar in the aforesaid accident.

3. Upon appreciation of the evidence on record, the learned Tribunal held that although the appellant failed to prove the occurrence of the accident involving the alleged offending vehicle, namely lorry bearing registration No. DL-1G-3595, or rash and negligent driving on the part of respondent No.2. The learned Tribunal disbelieved the testimony of the purported witness, Krishan (PW2, brother of the deceased), holding it to be unreliable and afterthought, particularly in the absence of any plausible explanation for the contradictions with the contemporaneous police version. Further, the learned Tribunal noticed that the earliest version reflected in the police report (Ex. PE2) and Partap Singh's information (Ex. P4) indicated that the deceased had veered onto the wrong side on a 24-foot-wide road with 5-foot margins, causing the collision, and that no FIR was lodged due to the deceased's fault. The police investigation culminated in an untraced report, duly proved by the investigating officer. In these circumstances, the subsequent introduction of the lorry DL-16/3595 and its driver was held to be an afterthought. Further, in the absence of reliable and independent evidence connecting the death of the deceased with the alleged offending vehicle or establishing rash and negligent driving by respondent No.2, the learned Tribunal held that the appellant failed to prove the foundational facts of the case and consequently dismissed the claim petition vide award dated 14.03.2005.

CONTENTIONS

4. Learned counsel for the appellant assailed the impugned award as being contrary to law and the evidence on record. It was contended that the learned Tribunal erred in disbelieving the testimony of PW2 (Krishan), who was projected as a material witness to the accident, on the basis of alleged minor contradictions and his interested status, while overlooking the fact that his version was cogent, detailed, and stood corroborated by the police report Ex. P2 and the benevolent object of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. It was further argued that the learned Tribunal committed a grave error in giving undue weight to the unproved panchnamas (Marks D2 and D3) and drawing adverse inferences from the police report (Ex. PE2) and Partap Singh's statement (Ex. P4), which, according to the appella