1) IN THE HI E HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HA D HARYANA AT v. FAO-2710-2019
Case Details
Page 1 of 6 6 (cid:1) IN THE HI E HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HA D HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 238 Reena & Othe thers Subhash Chan hander & Others Vs. FAO-2710-2019(O&M) Date of decision: 30.04.2025 ...Appellant(s) ...Respondent(s) CORAM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE NID NIDHI GUPTA Present:- Mr. Manish Verma, Advoca for the appellants. vocate Mr. Rahul Bansal, Advocate cate for ate Mr. D.R. Bansal, Advocate surance Company. for respondent No.3/Insura NIDHI GUPTA, PTA, J. *** Present appeal has been ing een filed by the claimants laying challenge to th to the Award dated 01.02.2019 pas ms passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Hisa Hisar (hereinafter referred to as “t im s “the Tribunal”), whereby Claim Petition beari earing MACT Case No.6 of 2018 d he 18 dated 24.01.2018 filed by the appellants un under Section 166 of the Mot ter Motor Vehicles Act (hereinafter referred to as o as “the Act”), has been dismiss he missed. The 4 claimants are the widow, minor inor son, and parents of the decease eased Sandeep. 2. Brief facts of the case as ion as pleaded in the claim petition are that on 04 n 04.11.2017, Sandeep was going t jaj ing towards his fields on his Bajaj SUNENA 2025.05.02 17:43 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document (cid:1) Discover moto motorcycle bearing registration No Page 2 of 6 6 (cid:1) ter No.HR-80-3191 for looking after the same. At At about 9.30 p.m. when he reach of ached on Jind road in the area of village Gyanpu anpura, then offending Maruti Alto o. Alto Car bearing registration No. HR-20H-0252 252 (hereinafter referred to as “the as the offending vehicle”) which was being driven b en by its driver i.e. respondent No.1 n a No.1 at a very high speed and in a rash, negligen igent, careless and in a zigzag man tly manner came there and directly struck into the o the motor cycle of Sandeep, due ed due to which, Sandeep sustained serious, grievo rievous and multiple injuries and h ala nd he was taken to CHC Barwala from where h re he was referred to Governme he nment Hospital, Hisar where he succumbed to d to the injuries after some time
Facts
FIR ime. A criminal case bearing FIR No.463 dated ated 05.11.2017 (Ex.P2) under Sec as Sections 279 and 304-A IPC was registered in in Police Station Barwala, rega he regarding this accident on the statement of A of Anil Kumar. 3. It was further pleaded in he d in the claim petition that the deceased was was 33 years old at the time o ing e of accident and was earning Rs.15,000/- per month from Tara Cattle om ttle Feed and Rs.15,000/- from agriculture an e and dairy farming. It was further ad her stated that the deceased had died during tr g treatment in hospital and an amo nt amount of Rs.70,000/- was spent by the claima imants on transportation and fune ly, funeral and last rites. Accordingly, compensation tion of Rs.50 lakh was claimed. SUNENA 2025.05.02 17:43 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document (cid:1) 4. Learned counsel for the Page 3 of 6 6 (cid:1) he the appellants submits that the claim petition tion of the appellants could not ha of t have been dismissed in view of the fact that a at as per the Post-Mortem Report he ort dated 05.11.2017 (Ex.P4), the cause of deat death of deceased was “shock and of and haemorrhage as a result of head injuries ries which was sufficient to cause of ause death in ordinary course of nature. All inju l injuries are antemortem in nature a t ure and possible in an accident.” It is submitted t ed that it was well proven by the ed the appellant before the learned Tribunal that t hat the deceased had died due to t in to the injuries suffered by him in the accident ent in question. However, these en factsand evidence have been ignored by th y the learned Tribunal in passing t ed ng the impugned Award. Learned counsel conte ontends that in a proceeding unde cie nder the Act, only a prima facie case is require quired to be made out against the nt the respondents. In the present case, it is adm admitted that report under Sectio led ction 173 Cr.P.C. (Ex.P1) was filed against the res e respondents No.1 and 2 thereby p he by proving the involvement of the offending veh vehicle. Respondent No.1 was als he also facing trial in the FIR. The appellants we were only required to prove their of eir case on the preponderance of the probabilit bilities. As such, the learned Trib in Tribunal was in patent error in dismissing the the claim petition. It is according ed dingly prayed that the impugned Award be set
Legal Reasoning
in s upon judgments of this Court in “Harbans Lal Lal & Others Vs. Harvinder Pal & # l & Others” Law Finder Doc ID # SUNENA 2025.05.02 17:43 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document (cid:1) 726118; and nd “United India Insurance Compan Page 4 of 6 6 (cid:1) rs” pany Ltd. Vs. Om Pati & Others” Law Finder Do r Doc ID # 826688. 5. Learned counsel or for ce respondent No.3/Insurance Company opp opposes the prayer made on behalf its half of the appellants and submits that the driver river of the offending vehicle stands rial ands acquitted in the criminal trial vide judgment ent dated 05.11.2019 passed by th te, by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Hisar isar. A copy of said judgment dated in ated 05.11.2019 is handed over in the Court whi which is taken on record. Learned for ned counsel accordingly prays for dismissal of th of the present appeal. 6. 7. No other argument is made ade on behalf of the parties. I have heard learned couns ed ounsel for the parties and perused the case file in ile in great detail. 8. I find no merit in the subm of ubmissions advanced on behalf of the appellants ants. 9. FIR No.463 dated 05.11.20 on 1.2017 (Ex.P2) was registered on the basis of st of statement of one Anil Kumar PW he PW2, who has admitted that he was not eyew yewitness to the accident in questio ot estion as he had reached the spot 30-45 minutes utes after the accident. As per the as the appellants, the accident was witnessed by by one Kulbir PW3. However, ine by inexplicably FIR was not filed by PW3 Kulbir; n ir; nor is his name mentioned in t nd in the FIR as an eyewitness; and even in the rep report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. in of C. in the list of witnesses, name of SUNENA 2025.05.02 17:43 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document (cid:1) Kulbir is not not mentioned. It is incompreh prehensible that Page 5 of 6 6 (cid:1) as if, Kulbir was eyewitness to to the accident in question, why he hy did Anil not name him in the first instance ncein the FIR as an eyewitness; an ed. ; and why was he not examined. This can only nly indicate that PW3 Kulbir was is was a procured witness; as he is brought into th to the picture only later onby Anil in nil in the improved version. 10. Furthermore, FIR was nst as registered by Anil against unknown pers person; and details of offending veh me vehicle were not given. The name of responden dent No.1 driver has been ment on entioned for the first time on 29.11.2017 i. 7 i.e. almost 25 days after the in the accident. Even further, in contradiction ion of the above version, alleged as eged eyewitness PW3 Kulbir has deposed that hat he had noted down the numbe n a ber of the offending vehicle on a piece of pape aper. If that was so, then why was ing was the number of the offending vehicle and id d identity of the respondent No.1 he o.1 not disclosed by Kulbir to the appellants wh whom he claimed to have known is wn for the past 25 years. There is even no expla xplanation as to why Kulbir did not i ter not immediately report the matter to the Police o ice or take the injured to the hospi in ospital. PW2 Anil has admitted in his testimony ony that Kulbir is related to him an his and that Kulbir had come to his house 7 days ays after the alleged accident and ion and had disclosed the registration number of the f the offending vehicle. Again, it is d he is discrepant that if Anil found the registration nu n number of the offending vehicle nt, hicle 5-7 days after the accident, then why was was the same not conveyed to the P in the Police till 29.11.2017. It was in SUNENA 2025.05.02 17:43 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document (cid:1) these circums umstances that the learned Tribuna Page 6 of 6 6 (cid:1) bir unal rightly concluded that Kulbir was a procure cured witness. 11. Learned counsel for the ap fit e appellants can derive no benefit from the relie relied upon judgments as the sam cts same are distinguishable on facts and law. 12. 13. 30.04.2025 Sunena
Decision
In view of the above, prese resent appeal is dismissed. Pending application(s) if an if any also stand(s) disposed of. (Nidhi Gupta) Judge Whether speaki Whether report eaking/reasoned: Yes/No Yes/No portable: SUNENA 2025.05.02 17:43 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document (cid:1)