IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Reserved on: 02.05.2025 Pronounced on : 06/ 06/ 2025 Santosh Kumari ......Appellant Vs.

Pawan Kumar and others ......Respondent(s)

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA Present: Mr.Mandeep Singh Sachdev and Mr. Om Malhan, Advocates for the appellant.

Mr. R.C. Kapoor, Advocate for the respondent-Insurance company.

----

S UDEEPTI SHARMA J. (ORAL)

The present appeal has been preferred against the award dated

21.12.2005 passed in the claim petition filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short ‘the Act’) by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Hoshiarpur (for short, 'the Tribunal') vide which the claim petition filed by the appellant/claimant-Santosh Kumari (since deceased), was dismissed.

FACTS NOT IN DISPUTE

2. The brief facts of the case as mentioned in the claim petition are that on the fateful day i.e. 18.05.2000, claimant/appellant-Santosh Kumari alongwith her son Rakesh Kumar and daughter in law Seema Kumari was coming towards Hoahiarpur in Maruti Car bearing registration No. PB-33-4366 being driven by Shah Ram-respondent No.4. When they reached in the area of village Gujran near ACC Cement Dump, a Tata 407 bearing registration No.

PB-10-AJ-9526 (hereinafter referred to as ‘offending vehicle’) being driven by respondent No.2 in a rash, negligent manner at a very high speed came from the opposite direction. The offending vehicle dashed into the car. As a result of which, the car was dragged by it towards other side, resulting into injuries to all the occupants of the car. The car was also totally smashed. The accident took place solely due to the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by its driver. The injured were rushed to civil hospital Hoshiarpur. The driver of offending vehicle got registered false case against the driver of Maruti car of the appellant/claimant. Subsequently, all the injured namely Rakesh Kumar, Smt. Seema and Smt. Santosh Kumari were shifted to DMC, Ludhiana where they remained under treatment for a period of 1 ½ year.

3. Upon notice of the claim petition, respondents appeared and filed their separate written replies denying the factum of accident/compensation.

4. From the pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal framed the following issues:-

1. Whether the claimant sustained injuries in motor vehicle accident which took place on 18.5.2000 at about 9.15 a.m. in the area of Chak Gujjran due to rash and negligent driving of truck bearing No. PB-10-AJ-9526 by Mukesh Kumar respondent No. 2? OPA.

2. Whether respondent No.2 was not having any valid driving licence at the time of the accident? OPR-3 3. Whether the claim petition has been filed in collusion with respondents No.4 and 5? OPR-3

4. To what amount of compensation the claimant is entitled and from whom?OPA

5. Relief.

5. After taking into consideration the pleadings and the evidence on record, the learned Tribunal dismissed the claim-petition. Hence, the claimant/appellant filed the present appeal for grant of compensation.

SUBMISSIONS OF THE LEARNED COUNSELS FOR THE PARTIES

6. Learned counsel for the appellant contends that the claim petition was dismissed only on the ground that negligence of the driver of offending vehicle- Tata 407 bearing registration No.PB-10-AJ-9526 was not proved. He further contends that the factum of accident is proved by evidence on record and the accident is admitted by respondents No.1 and 2 i.e. owner and driver of TATA-407 bearing registration No.PB-10-AJ-9526. Therefore, even if the negligence was contributory qua drivers of both vehicles, the claim petition of appellant/claimant could not have been dismissed and compensation should have been granted. Therefore, he prays that the present appeal be allowed and compensation be granted as per settled law.

7. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent-Insurance Company vehemently argues on the lines of the award and submits that no complaint or FIR was lodged by the claimant/appellant again