SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

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

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top