05.08.2025 Date o v. Hasan Mohd Mohd. and others
Case Details
IOIN- 1-FA FAO-7803 FAO-7803-2015 in/and 03-2015 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIG E HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HA ND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 235 Akram IOIN IOIN-1-FAO-7803-2015 in/and FAO-7803-2015 (O&M) FAO Date of Decision: 05.08.2025 Date o .… Appellant Versus Hasan Mohd Mohd. and others .... Respondents CORAM: H
Legal Reasoning
M: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDH NIDHI GUPTA Present: - None. NIDHI GUP I GUPTA, J. (ORAL) 1. The present appeal has been lis een listed under the IOIN Category for completi mpletion of service of respondent N heet dent No. 1. However, order-sheet shows that s that since inception of the appeal, for peal, the same has been listed for hearing 03 t g 03 times, out of which on 02 dates 015 dates of hearing i.e. on 21.12.2015 and 04.011.2 4.011.2024 before the Daily Lok Ad one ok Adalat, the appellant had gone un-represent resented. As such, the main appeal i day peal is taken up for hearing today itself. 2. The present appeal has been ant been filed by the injured-claimant against the d t the dismissal of his claim petition be ion bearing MACT No. 100 of 2012 dated 28.01. 28.01.2014, filed under Section 166 Act, n 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, by the by the learned Motor Accident Clai . t Claims Tribunal, Nuh at Mewat. Vide impugn mpugned Award dated 28.01.2014, tak that , taking into account the fact that the claiman aimant has been unable to prove th ding ove the involvement of offending vehicle bear e bearing registration No. RJ-29-G GA-1137; and also failed to establish the ish the rash and negligent driving by iving of the offending vehicle by RISHU KATARIA 2025.08.06 18:31 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. IOIN- 1-FA FAO-7803 FAO-7803-2015 in/and 03-2015 (O&M) -2- respondent N dent No. 1. The learned Tribunal, in ned in para No. 13 of the impugned Award has o has observed as under:- “13. In view of my discussion fully proved that the offending v accident causing any injury an rash and negligent for the s charge and even judgment criminal court is not binding of negligence is always upon the discharge it before the tribuna authority Ram Karan Vs. Zile judgment referred above Ravi is held that claimant/petition involvement of offending vehic has not been proved that a petitioner by offending vehicle. against the petitioner.” sion, I am of the opinion that it is is he ing vehicle was not involved in the ot ry and respondent no. 1 was not he same. Mere FIR, framing of of of of conviction or acquittal of ng g of tribunal. The onus of proving n the claimant that they have to to bunal. Reliance has place on the he he Zile Singh (supra). In view of the avi Vs. Badrinarayan (supra), it it itioner has failed to prove the he It ehicle in the alleged accident. It t alleged injury caused to the he ed icle. Hence, issue no. 1 is decided 3. The matter pertains to the year by a e year 2015 and was admitted by a co-ordinate inate Bench of this vide order dated s as dated 02.05.2016, which reads as under:- “C.M No. 24472 C.II of 2015 40 for condonation of delay of 540 This is an application fo he the the reasons recorded, or days in filing the appeal. For delay of 540 days is condoned but ut application is allowed and dela be wed, the appellant would not be in case this appeal is allowed e days. entitled for interest for these da FAO-4690-2016 This appeal has been file he n filed against the dismissal of the claim petition. Admitted.” 4. Thereafter, the matter was listed alat s listed before the Daily Lok Adalat Bench No. 5 No. 5 for exploring the possibility of een ility of amicable settlement between the parties. arties. However, vide order dated was ated 04.11.2024, the matter was remanded ba ded back to this Court as, the present a issal esent appeal is against the dismissal of claim peti m petition. 5. As per office report dated 29.0 062 29.03.2025, vide letter Nos. 1062 and 6479 da 79 dated 08.02.2022 and 08.05.2024, nsel .2024, respectively, learned counsel for the appe e appellant to supply fresh/correct ad . 1. address(s) of respondent No. 1. RISHU KATARIA 2025.08.06 18:31 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. IOIN- 1-FA FAO-7803 FAO-7803-2015 in/and 03-2015 (O&M) -3- However, le ver, learned counsel for the appellant for pellant has not taken any steps for effecting ser ng service upon respondent No. 1. o. 1. Further, as per office report dated 04.04. 04.04.2025, learned counsel for the rned r the appellant as well as learned counsel for el for respondent No. 3-Insurance duly rance Company have been duly informed ab ed about the date fixed through e-ma t in mail. However, none has put in appearance o rance on behalf of the appellant. 6. From the above facts it is clear clear that right since the inception/ filing of th of the instant appeal on 19.10.20 .10.2015, the appellant had gone one un-represent resented. The appellant has exhibited e in hibited an utterly casual attitude in his pursuit rsuit of the present litigation. It is very It is to be appreciated that very valuable pu le public time of the Court has b ding has been expended in affording opportunities tunities to the appellant in the interest and, terest of justice. On the other hand, the appellan pellant has adopted an utterly casual It is casual and careless approach. It is clear that ne that neither the appellant nor his cou d in counsel is seriously interested in pursuing the ng the present matter. Even on meri t to n merits no ground is made out to interfere in t re in the impugned Award. Thus, the the present appeal is dismissed. 7. IOIN as well as pending appl application(s), if any, shall also stand dispose
Decision
disposed of. 2025 05.08.2025 rishu ( NIDHI GUPTA ) JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No RISHU KATARIA 2025.08.06 18:31 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment.