2023:PHHC:072215 Page 1 of 5

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

252

FAO-7088-2018 (O&M)

Date of decision: 17.05.2023

Usha & Another

...Appellant(s)

Vs.

Suraj Kumar & Others

...Respondent(s)

CORAM:

HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA

Present:-

Mr. Surender Saini, Advocate

for the appellants.

***

NIDHI GUPTA, J.

CM-26018-CII-2018

This is an application under Section 151 of Civil

Procedure Code, 1908 seeking condonation of delay of 59 days in re-

filing the appeal.

After going through the contents of the application, the

same is allowed subject to all just exceptions.

MAIN APPEAL

Present appeal has been filed by the claimants against

dismissal of their claim petition by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,

Sonipat (hereinafter referred to as “the learned Tribunal”) vide Award

dated 03.01.2018 passed in MACP/416/2016 filed under Section 163-Aof

the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”).

Claimants were the widow, minor son and mother of deceased-Rajender.

Mother of the deceased has been arrayed as pro-forma respondent No.3

herein.

SUNENA

2023.05.30 10:37

I attest to the accuracy and

authenticity of this document

2023:PHHC:072215 Page 2 of 5

2.

Claim petition was filed by the appellants on account

of death of Rajender in a motor vehicular accident that took place on

20.03.2016 due to the alleged rash and negligent driving of motorcycle

bearing registration No.DL-9SBD-5781 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the

alleged offending vehicle’), being owned by respondent No.1 and

insured by respondent No.2 herein. Though, the learned Tribunal

calculated the compensation payable to the claimants as Rs.4,03,000/-

yet, held that as the claimants had failed to prove that the accident in

question had occurred due to use of the alleged offending vehicle,

accordingly, learned Tribunal had dismissed the appellants’ claim

petition.

3.

Learned counsel for the appellants inter alia submits:

a) that learned Tribunal was in patent error in

dismissing the appellants’ claim petition as it is crystal clear that the

accident in question had taken place due to the rash and negligent

driving of the alleged offending vehicle which is owned by respondent

No.1 herein;

b) that in petition under Section 163-A of the Act, only

onus upon the claimants is to prove use of the vehicle and in the present

case the claimants have proved that successfully. It is submitted that

under Section 163-A of the Act, claimants are not required to establish

rash and negligent driving.

4.

No other argument is raised on behalf of the

appellants.

SUNENA

2023.05.30 10:37

I attest to the accuracy and

authenticity of this document

2023:PHHC:072215 Page 3 of 5

5.

I have heard learned counsel for the appellants.

6.

Perusal of record of the case shows that in the accident

in question that took place on 20.03.2016, two persons lost their lives.

One is Rajender/present deceased who was driving motorcycle bearing

registration No.HR-42-8211; and the other is Ankit, driver of the alleged

offending vehicle. Sahil-PW2 was pillion-riding on Ankit’s motorcycle. So,

Sahil is the sole eyewitness of the accident.

7.

It is the claimants’ pleaded case that while the

deceased was driving his motorcycle bearing registration No.HR-42-

8211, he collided with the alleged offending vehicle being driven by

Ankit, due to the impact of which collision, the deceased suffered

multiple grievous injuries which proved to be fatal. It is also the

claimants’ own case that when the deceased had reached near village

Sitawali, a car being driven at a fast speed came from the opposite

direction and hit the motorcycle of deceased-Rajender. As a result of the

impact of the said car, motorcycle of deceased Rajender then hit the

alleged offending vehicle i.e. motorcycle being driven by Ankit. As a

r