IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO-825-2002 Date of decision: 20.04.2026

1. FAO-824-2002 STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER ...APPELLANTS VERSUS RAM SAROOP AND OTHERS ...RESPONDENTS

2. FAO-825-2002 STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER ...APPELLANTS VERSUS JAI PAL SINGH AND OTHERS ...RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PARMOD GOYAL Present: Mr. Abhinav Mahant, AAG, Haryana for the appellant(s).

Ms. Garima Thappa, Advocate for respondent No.5.

****

P ARMOD GOYAL , J. (ORAL)

The appellants have preferred two appeals against impugned award dated 5.11.2001 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ambala (hereinafter referred to as “Tribunal”) vide which claim petitions preferred by respondents–claimants were allowed and compensation was awarded to claimants on account of death of Sarupa Devi and on account of death of Mohindro Devi who died in motor vehicular accident which took place on 22.12.1998, due to rash and negligent driving by respondent No.1 while driving bus bearing registration No. HR-20-PA-0318 (hereinafter referred to as ‘offending vehicle’).

2. Brief facts relevant to the present lis are that Surinder Singh (injured) along with his mother Sarupa Devi and aunt Mohindro Devi (deceased), who were riding pillion on the scooter, were going from Manimajra to village Jansui on a scooter bearing registration number CH-01- U-3229. At about 10.30 am when they reached near the curve on Ambala – Hisar road, a bus being driven in a rash and negligent manner bearing registration number HR-20-PA-0318, came from the opposite side hit the scooter of the claimants by coming to the wrong side of the road. The pillion riders died on account of injuries sustained in the accident.

3. From the pleadings, the following issues were framed:-

(1) Whether the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of bus No.HR-20-PA-0318 by respondent No.3, resulting into death of Smt. Mohindro Devi, Smt. Saroopi Kaur and injuries to claimant-Surinder Pal, as alleged? OPP (2) If issue No.1 is proved, to what amount of compensation, the claimants are entitled to and from whom? OPP (3) Whether the driver of the offending vehicle was not having any valid driving licence? OPR (4) Relief.

4. The challenge in the two appeals is with regards to issue No.1 which was decided in favour of the respondents-claimants by the learned Tribunal. In the present case, involvement of respondent No.1 and offending vehicle in causing the accident is not in dispute. In fact, Dayadeep-driver of offending vehicle had duly appeared as RW1 along with conductor Sher Singh who appeared as RW2. According to them it was scooterist i.e. injured claimant who was driving the scooter in a rash and negligent manner and one of the pillion riders was holding a heavy bag which was falling down and while pillion rider tried to catch hold of it, the scooterist lost control and fell on the road. RW1 and RW2 both claimed that false case was registered against respondent/driver. RW1 further claimed that he had duly informed G.M. Haryana Roadways immediately in this regard. RW2 had stated the manner of occurrence of accident in a similar manner. He stated that two ladies were sitting as pillion riders and were holding a bag. As the bag fell down, the scooterist lost control and hit the bus.

5. On the other hand, injured-claimant Surinder Pal appeared as PW5 and reiterated the manner of occurrence as was stated by him while lodging FIR and in claim petition. He stated that he was going on scooter along with his mother and aunt who were pillion riders and driving the same on left side of the road. In the meanwhile, haryana roadways bus bearing No.HR-20- PA-0318 came from opposite side and hit his scooter, dragging the scooter for about 35 feet. The accident resulted into death of both the pillion riders on the spot and multiple fractures on the right leg were suffered by injured PW5. It is also not in dispute that FIR was duly registered on the statement of injured PW5 and after inves