Page 1 of 4

FAO 2867/2021

2023:PHHC:041304

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH

FAO 2867 OF 2021

Date of decision:21/03/2023

Preeti and another

………………Appellants

Vs.

Akbar Ali and others

…………………Respondents

CORAM

HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA

Present:-

Mr. Ram Pal Verma, Advocate for the appellants.

Nidhi Gupta, J.

Present appeal has been filed by the claimants against the

dismissal of their claim petition No.89/2020 filed u/s 140 and 166 of the

Motor Vehicles Act,1988 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’), vide Award

dated 6.4.2021 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Panipat

(hereinafter referred to as ‘the Tribunal’).

It is submitted by the ld. Counsel for the appellants that the

deceased Sohan Lal had died due to injuries suffered by him in a motor

vehicular accident that took place on 21.8.2017. It is further submitted that

the ld. Tribunal has dismissed their claim petition solely on the ground that

there was some delay in registration of the FIR. It is submitted that

accordingly, ld. Tribunal held that the appellants had failed to prove that the

respondent no.1 was rash and negligent in driving/parking his vehicle

bearing registration No. HR-67B-9145. It is submitted that the ld. Tribunal

had wrongly dismissed appellants’ claim petition.

RAJINDER PARSHAD JOSHI

2023.03.27 15:38

I attest to the accuracy and

integrity of this document

Page 2 of 4

FAO 2867/2021

2023:PHHC:041304

No other argument has been advanced on behalf of the appellants.

Heard ld. Counsel.

Perusal of the impugned Award shows that ld. Tribunal has

returned the following findings in the impugned Award:-

“18. On the other hand Ld.

Counsel for respondents no.1 and 2 have denied

the occurrence of the accident dated 21.08.2017

and contended that the accident had occurred due

to the negligence of the deceased himself. He was

driving his motor-cycle no. HR03Q-5212 rashly

and negligently and crashed against their

stationary Bolero Pick- up. The Bolero Pick-up

was parked on the left shoulder of the road with all

parking indicators on. The driver of the Bolero

Pick-up had no role in the accident and it was

solely due to negligence of the deceased.

19.

Ld.

Counsel

for

the

respondent no.3 has argued that the petitioners

were not entitled to any compensation as the

accident had occurred due to the rashness and

negligence on the part of the deceased himself and

further the respondents no.1 and 2 had not

informed the insurance company regarding the

accident and thus, had violated the terms and

conditions of the policy. It has been alleged that

the version of the claimants/petitioners was false,

fabricated and concocted one and a result of an

after-thought. With these submissions dismissal of

the petition has been sought.

RAJINDER PARSHAD JOSHI

2023.03.27 15:38

I attest to the accuracy and

integrity of this document

Page 3 of 4

FAO 2867/2021

2023:PHHC:041304

20. In the present case as per

the version of FIR no. 791 dated 24.08.2017 as

well as the version of the claimants, Anil Kumar

was an eye witness of the accident which resulted

in death of Sohan Lal. Said Anil Kumar was also

allegedly the brother of deceased Sohan Lal. The

claimants have not examined Anil Kumar as a

witness in the present petition to prove the

rashness and negligence on the part of respondent

no.1 i.e. driver of the Bolero Pick-up. There is no

other evidence on record of any kind to suggest

that there was any negligence on the part of the

driver of the Bolero Pick-up, rather the afore-said

Anil Kumar in his statement to the police (version

of FIR) stated that the deceased Sohan Lal was

himself negligent in driving his motor-cycle

bearing no. HR03Q- 5212. As per Anil Kumar

attention of Sohan Lal was distracted while driving

the motor-cycle and he crashed again