FAO-756-2005

-1-

320

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH

****

FAO-756-2005

Date of Decision: 23.09.2022

Banti Devi and others

..... Petitioners

Versus

Sukhwant Singh and others

..... Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSH BUNGER

Present:

Mr. Yadvinder Singh Turka, Advocate

for the appellants.

Mr. Amit Aggarwal, DAG, Haryana

for respondents No.2 and 3/State.

*****

HARSH BUNGER J.

This order shall dispose of the appeal (FAO-756-2005) filed by

the Appellants-claimants, against award dated 02.11.2004 (hereinafter

referred to as 'impugned award') passed by the Motor Accident Claim

Tribunal, Ambala (for brevity 'the Tribunal'), whereby the claim petition

filed by the Appellants-claimants seeking compensation under Section 166

of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for brevity 'the Act') was dismissed.

Sarwant Singh (mentioned as Sukhwant Singh in Memorandum

of Parties), driver of Bus bearing registration No. HRA-4510 (hereinafter

referred to as 'offending vehicle'); the General Manager, Haryana

Roadways; the State Transport Controller, Haryana and the Insurance

APURVA

2022.09.30 15:47

I attest to the authenticity and

integrity of this document

High Court, Chandigarh

FAO-756-2005

-2-

Company have been arrayed as respondents No.1 to 4, respectively.

The record of this appeal was burnt and from the salvaged

record of partially burnt case, the same was reconstructed, subject to all just

exceptions and further verification.

Brief facts necessary for adjudication of the appeal are that the

appellants/claimants [widow and sons of Baljeet Ram (hereinafter referred

to as 'deceased')] filed petition under Section 166 of the Act claiming

compensation on account of death of the deceased in a motor vehicle

accident. It was stated in the petition that deceased was a driver under XEN

(Mechanical) PWD (B&R), Ambala Cantt. and on 07.05.1977, the deceased

was on duty on the truck owned by PWD Department when the offending

vehicle being driven by one Sarwant Singh in a rash and negligent manner

and at a very high speed hit against the deceased; who fell down and was

run over by the offending vehicle and he died at the spot. It was stated that

an FIR regarding the said accident was lodged at Police Station Shahabad

Markanda.

The above said claim petition was contested by the General

Manager, Haryana and the State Transport Controller, Haryana on the

ground that the petition was not maintainable and was hopelessly time

barred as the same has been filed after a gap of 23 years of the alleged

occurrence. Objections on account of locus standi, suppression of material

facts and non-joinder of the necessary party were raised. On merits,

averments of the claimants were denied and the plea of negligence was also

denied. Stand was also taken that the accident in question has not taken

place due to the fault of driver of the offending vehicle and accordingly

APURVA

2022.09.30 15:47

I attest to the authenticity and

integrity of this document

High Court, Chandigarh

FAO-756-2005

-3-

dismissal of the claim petition was prayed for.

The claimants did not file any replication.

From pleadings of the parties, the following issues were

framed:

“1. Whether the deceased died in a road side accident

allegedly caused due to rash and negligent driving of

Bus No.HRA-4510 by respondent No.1-Sukhwant Singh

as alleged? .... OPP

2. If issue is proved in affirmative then to what amount

of compensation the claimants are entitled to and from

whom? ..... OPP

3. Whether the claim petition is not maintainable in the

present form? .....OPRs

4. Whether the claim petition is time barred? ..... OPRs

5. Whether the claimants have not locus standi to file

the present claim petition? ..... OPRs

6. Whether the claim petition is bad for non-joinder of

necessary parties? ..... OPRs

7. Relief.”

In order to substantiate the claim, the claimants examined Banti

Devi (Appellant No.1) as PW-1 and further examined one Mam