2026 Supreme(Online)(P&H) 77434
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
SANDEEP KUMAR AND OTHERS – Appellant
Versus
AJIT SINGH AND OTHERS – Respondent
FAO_1793_2020
##PAGE1##
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
****
107 FAO-1793-2020
Date of Decision.:12.05.2026
Sandeep Kumar and Others …..Appellants
Vs.
Ajit Singh and Others .….Respondents
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA
Present:- Mr. Sandeep Kumar, Advocate for
Mr. Sajjan Singh, Advocate for
the appellants.
****
DEEPAK GUPTA, J. (ORAL)
It is claimants’ appeal assailing the award dated 30.10.2019
passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Gurugram, whereby the
claim pe,,on filed under Sec,on 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act seeking
compensa,on on account of death of Smt. Pooja Devi came to be dis-
missed.
2.1 The case set up by the claimants before the Tribunal was that
on 29.07.2017 claimant Sandeep Kumar along with his wife Smt. Pooja Devi
was standing near NSG Campus Gate, Manesar, Gurugram, when a passen-
ger bus bearing registra,on No. HR-55Y-6583, being driven in a rash and
negligent manner, struck against Pooja Devi. It was alleged that the driver
further ran the vehicle over the deceased, causing mul,ple grievous injur-
ies. She was ini,ally taken to Rockland Hospital, IMT Manesar and there-
a:er referred to R.R. Hospital, where she succumbed to the injuries during
treatment. FIR regarding the occurrence was registered on the statement
of claimant Sandeep Kumar.
NEETIKA TUTEJA
2026.05.13 17:28
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
##PAGE2##FAO-1793-2020
2.2 It was further pleaded that the deceased was about 27 years of
age, was engaged in household work as well as agricultural ac,vi,es and
was earning approximately ₹20,000/- per month. Compensa,on to the
tune of ₹50,00,000/- was claimed from the driver, owner and insurer of the
alleged offending bus.
3. The respondents contested the claim pe,,on and specifically
denied the involvement of bus No. HR-55Y-6583 in the alleged occurrence.
4. On the pleadings of the par,es, learned Tribunal framed ne-
cessary issues and afforded adequate opportunity to the par,es to lead
evidence.
5. Upon apprecia,on of the oral as well as documentary evidence
available on record, learned Tribunal returned a finding that the claimants
had failed to establish either the involvement of bus No. HR-55Y-6583 or
negligence on the part of its driver. Consequently, the claim pe,,on was
dismissed.
6. The Tribunal, while recording the aforesaid conclusion, no,ced
several material discrepancies and deficiencies in the evidence produced by
the claimants. It was specifically observed that the FIR had ini,ally been re-
gistered against an unknown vehicle and an unknown driver and that the
registra,on number of the alleged offending bus did not find men,on
therein. The Tribunal further no,ced that no independent witness had
come forward immediately a:er the occurrence to disclose the registra,on
number of the vehicle allegedly involved in the accident.
7. It was further observed that though the place of occurrence
was admiDedly covered by CCTV cameras, no CCTV footage was produced
by the claimants to substan,ate their version. Likewise, no documentary
material such as route permit, duty chart, log book or any official record
Page No. 2 of 4 Pages
NEETIKA TUTEJA
2026.05.13 17:28
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
##PAGE3##FAO-1793-2020
was produced to establish that bus No. HR-55Y-6583 was actually plying at
the relevant place and ,me.
8. The learned Tribunal also aDached significance to the fact that
the Inves,ga,ng Officer of the criminal case was not examined by the
claimants to explain the manner in which the alleged offending vehicle was
subsequently connected with the accident. In absence of such evidence,
the prosecu,on papers alone were rightly held insufficient to conclusively
establish involvement of the vehicle in claim proceedings.
9. Another circumstance which weighed with the Tribunal was
that claimant Sandeep Kumar projected himself as an eye-witness to the
occurrence, whereas the evidence on record revealed that it was ASI
Harmesh Kumar, who had shi:ed the injured to the hospital immediately
a:er the accid