IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH BANT SINGH AND ANR. ......Appellants Vs.

LALIT KUMAR AND ORS. ......Respondents Reserved on: 18.03.2026 Pronounced on: 21.04.2026 Uploaded on: 27.04.2026 Whether only the operative part of the judgment is pronounced? NO Whether full judgment is pronounced? YES CORAM: HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA Present: Mr. Ramdeep Partap Singh, Advocate Mr. Sahil Koul, Advocate for the appellants.

Mr. Ishan Gupta, Advocate Ms. Vrinda Katoch, Advocate for respondents No.1 and 2. Ms. Jyotsna Saini, Advocate Mr. Ashish Yadav, Advocate for respondent No.3-Insurance Company.

SUDEEPTI SHARMA J.

1. The present appeal has been preferred against the award dated 05.10.2015 passed in the claim petition filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sangrur (for short, 'the Tribunal'), whereby, claim petition filed by the appellants/claimants, was dismissed.

BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE

2. The brief facts of the case are that the deceased was 45 years old, who was serving in Homeguard department and was earning Rs.15,000/- per mensem; that on 17.10.2014 deceased Jagtar Singh was going from Bhawanigarh to Police Station, Sadar, Sunam, on his motorcycle, make Bajaj Discover, bearing registration no. PB 13 Z 5790; that at about 06.30 p.m. deceased Jagtar Singh met his brother Harmail Singh, who was waiting for the deceased on the way; that after meeting his brother Harmail Singh, deceased proceeded towards Police Station, Sadar, Sunam on his motorcycle; that the deceased reached near village Gharachon on main road, when a car, make Swift, bearing registration no. HR 25 C 2220 (for short, the offending vehicle) owned by respondent no.2 and driven by respondent no.1 in a rash and negligent manner and at a high speed, came and rammed into motorcycle of the deceased; that as a result of the accident, the deceased received multiple grievous injuries and expired at the spot; that driver of the car along with his vehicle fled away from the spot; that on the statement of Harmail Singh, First Information Report no. 94 dated 18.10.2014 was registered under Sections 279, 427 and 304-A of the Indian Penal Code at Police Station, Sadar, Sangrur.

3. Upon notice of the claim petition, respondents therein appeared and contested the claim petition by filing separate written statement denying the factum of accident/compensation.

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

“1. Whether death of Jagtar Singh took place as a result of motor vehicle accident on 17.10.2014 in the area of village Gharachon due to rash and negligent driving of respondent no.1 of car bearing registration no. HR 25 C

2220? OPA

2. If issue no.1 is proved, whether the applicants are entitled to compensation, if so, to what amount and from whom? OPA

3. Whether respondent no.1 was holding a valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident? OPR-1

4. Relief.”

5. After taking into consideration the pleadings and the evidence on record, the learned Tribunal dismissed the claim petition of the appellant.

Hence the present appeal.

SUBMISSIONS OF THE LEARNED COUNSELS FOR THE PARTIES 6. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants–claimants contends that the learned Tribunal has gravely erred, both on facts and in law, in dismissing the claim petition on the untenable premise that the claimants failed to establish that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle. He further contends that the learned Tribunal has failed to properly appreciate the documentary as well as circumstantial evidence, particularly the recovery of the bumper of the offending vehicle from the spot of the accident, which clearly corroborates the involvement of the said vehicle. He, therefore, prays that the present appeal be allowed and the award passed by learned Tribunal be set aside.

7. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents supports the i