08.08.2025 Ramesh Kum sh Kumar v. Reena Devi Devi and others
Case Details
FAO-6236 36-2015 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIG HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HA D HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 205 FAO-6236-2015 (O&M) Date of Decision: 08.08.2025 Ramesh Kum sh Kumar .…Appellant Versus Reena Devi Devi and others ....Respondents CORAM: H M: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDH NIDHI GUPTA Present: - Mr. Pawan Kumar, Advocate fo Mr. Saurabh Arora, Advocate fo cate for cate for the appellant. NIDHI GUP I GUPTA, J. CM-19705 9705-CII-2015 Prayer in this application filed u s for filed under Section 151 CPC, is for condonation nation of delay of 156 days in re-filing filing the accompanying appeal. Heard. For the reasons stated in the ap rted the application which is supported by an affidav affidavit, the same is allowed; and del the nd delay of 156 days in re-filing the accompanyin panying appeal is condoned. FAO-6236 6236-2015 1. The present appeal has been fil r of een filed by the appellant/owner of the Jeep bear bearing registration No. CH-03-Q- to as -1423 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the offendin ffending vehicle’) against the Award d the ard dated 01.10.2014 passed by the learned Mot d Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, ‘the bunal, Chandigarh (for short -‘the Tribunal’), al’), whereby the claimants-responde ave pondents No. 1 and 2 here-in-have been awarde awarded compensation to the tune o t of tune of ₹4,00,000/-, on account of death of the of their minor son, namely, Maste rned Master Amit Kumar. The learned Tribunal on al on the basis of the pleadings and or ence and oral and documentary evidence RISHU KATARIA 2025.08.11 20:25 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. FAO-6236 36-2015 (O&M) -2- adduced befo before it had concluded that the dec ries he deceased had died due to injuries suffered by ed by him in a motor vehicular a on ular accident that took place on 28.08.2013 d 2013 due to rash and negligent drivin e by driving of the offending vehicle by respondent N dent No. 3-Rajinder Singh. Liability t bility to make the payment of above said compen ompensation was affixed upon the ap the appellant and respondent No.3 jointly and s and severally in view of the fact that the t that respondent No. 3 driver of the offending ve ing vehicle did not possess a valid an on alid and effective driving licence on the date of a te of accident. 2. Learned counsel for the appe the e appellant lays challenge to the impugned A ned Award on the ground that the lear not he learned Tribunal has erred in not considering ering the fact that the claimants/respo not s/respondents No. 1 and 2 have not approached ched the learned Tribunal with clean t the clean hands. It is submitted that the alleged accid d accident had taken place on 28.08.
Legal Reasoning
was 28.08.2013. However, the FIR was registered on red on 29.08.2013. Therefore, there is ging here is a delay of 01 day in lodging the FIR whi R which in itself proves that the cla laim the claimants have filed the claim petition after tions. n after deliberations and concoctions. 3. Learned counsel for the appel the appellant further submits that the learned Trib d Tribunal without appreciating had ing the evidence on record had accepted the ed the claim of the claimants. It is sub the is submitted that liability to pay the compensatio nsation cannot be affixed upon the app ner the appellant as he is only the owner of the offend offending vehicle which was being dri It is driven by respondent No. 3. It is contended th ded that even assuming the averments n to rments made in the claim petition to be correct, still the liability cannot be affixe e is affixed upon the appellant as, he is only the ow he owner of offending vehicle wher the whereas as per the claimants the offending ve ing vehicle was being driven by resp , the y respondent No. 3. Therefore, the appellant can ant cannot be held liable to pay the com rash the compensation on account of rash RISHU KATARIA 2025.08.11 20:25 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. FAO-6236 36-2015 (O&M) -3- and negligen egligent driving on the part of respon respondent No. 3.It is accordingly, prayed that t that the present appeal be allowed. 4. 5. No other argument is made on b e on behalf of the appellant. I have heard ld. counsel and go find and gone through the record. I find no merit wh rit whatsoever in the submissions m the ions made by ld. counsel for the appellant. 6. It was the pleaded case of the c ition f the claimants in the claim petition that on 28.0 n 28.08.2013, the deceased-Master A the ster Amit Kumar was crossing the road near vil ear village Jagatpura. In the meantime eing antime, the offending vehicle being driven by res by respondent No. 3 in a rash and neg the nd negligent manner came from the side of Jaga f Jagatpura and struck against the de the deceased. As a result of which deceased fel ed fell down and was run over by the o y the offending vehicle. 7. The learned Tribunal on the and n the basis of the pleadings and evidence ad ce adduced before it, has given the the finding that the deceased- Master Amit r Amit Kumar aged around 04 years ular years had died in a motor vehicular accident that nt that took place on 28.08.2013, due ving due to rash and negligent driving of the offen offending vehicle by respondent No the ent No. 3. It is not denied by the appellant th ant that he is the owner of the of was the offending vehicle, which was admittedly, edly, being driven by respondent No. y to nt No. 3. Therefore, the liability to pay the im he impugned compensation has rig the rightly been affixed upon the appellant an and respondent No. 3 in equal sha t the ual shares, on the ground that at the time of acci f accident, respondent No. 3 did not tive id not possess a valid and effective driving licen g licence. The findings of the learned learned Tribunal contained in para- No. 16 of the of the impugned Award, read as follo s follows:- “16. In order to prove this is as is issue, the respondent No.3 has examined RW-1 Manjit Singh, ty, gh, Office of Licencing Authority, RISHU KATARIA 2025.08.11 20:25 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. FAO-6236 36-2015 (O&M) -4- Chandigarh, who brought the ng the summoned record pertaining to Driving Licence No.CH01-20 me 2004101083 issued in the name of Rajinder Kumar, son of Sh. M se Sh. Mange Ram, resident of House No. 1305, Phase I,Ram Darba 04 arbar, Chandigarh on 18.10.2004 valid upto 17.10.2024. He ca he e categorically deposed that the said driving licence was a ar s authorizing Rajinder Kumar (Respondent No.1) to drive ar. rive the vehicles without gear. Whereas, at the time of occurre as currence the respondent No.1 was driving the four-wheeler, whic as which was with gear. RW-1 has also proved the copy of screen ce reen report of the driving licence as Ex.R-1 and destroy report as port consisting of two pages as Ex.R-2 of the said driving lice he licence. On the other hand, the respondent No. 1 Rajinder Ku ng r Kumar, driver of the offending vehicle has not produced any ve anything contrary to the above evidence led by the respondent eft dent No.3.Thus, the Court has left with no option except to hold t ot old that respondent No. 1 was not holding a valid and effective d of ive driving licence on the day of occurrence and the vehicle wa lid e was being plied without a valid driving licence, which is gre nd great violations of terms and conditions of Insurance Polic ce Policy. Therefore, the Insurance Company cannot be held liabl of liable to pay the said amount of compensation. As such, the er the respondent No. 1 Rajinder Kumar being the driver and nt and Ramesh Kumar, respondent No.2 being the owner of veh re vehicle No. CH-03-Q-1423 are liable to make the payment of n. t of the amount of compensation. However, the Insurance Com is Company respondent No. 3 is directed to satisfy the third-pa en party claim/award and is given further right to recover the by the same from the insured by executing the award like a decr decree against respondents No. 1 & 2. Thus, issue No. 3 is deci of decided accordingly in favour of respondent No.3.” 8. Accordingly, the learned arned Tribunal had rded awarded compensatio nsation of ₹4,00,000/- to the claima h of claimants on account of death of RISHU KATARIA 2025.08.11 20:25 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. FAO-6236 36-2015 (O&M) -5- Master Ami r Amit Kumar and affixed the liab and e liability upon the appellant and respondent N dent No. 3 in equal shares. In view ts, I view of the above admitted facts, I find no error o error in the same. 9.
Legal Reasoning
Learned counsel for the appella te or ppellant is also unable to dispute or controverts verts the aforesaid findings returned b rned by the learned Tribunal. 10. 11.
Decision
In view of the above, present ap sent appeal is hereby dismissed. Pending application(s), if any al any also stand(s) disposed of. 2025 08.08.2025 rishu ( NIDHI GUPTA ) JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No RISHU KATARIA 2025.08.11 20:25 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment.