Punjab-Haryana High Court
Prtc And Another vs Bauva And Others on 20 November, 2025
FAO-4695-2024 (O&M) [1]
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
FAO-4695-2024 (O&M)
Date of Decision: 20.11.2025
PRTC and another ....Appellants
Versus
Bauva and others ....Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKRAM AGGARWAL
Present:- Mr. Abhilaksh Gaind, Advocate, and
Mr. Rakesh Roy, Advocate, for the appellant
(Through Video Conference)
VIKRAM AGGARWAL, J.
CM-17448-CII-2024 For the reasons given in the application, which is supported by an affidavit, the same is allowed and the delay of 89 days in re-filing the appeal is condoned. CM-17449-CII-2024 This is an application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, seeking condonation of 51 days' delay in filing the appeal.
For the reasons given in the application, which is supported by an affidavit, the same is allowed subject to all just exceptions and the delay of 51 days in filing the appeal is condoned.
1 of 6
::: Downloaded on - 29-11-2025 06:15:34 :::
FAO-4695-2024 (O&M) [2]
FAO-4695-2024
Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 have preferred the
instant appeal assailing award dated 01.12.2023 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chandigarh (for short 'the MACT'), vide which the claim petition filed by the claimants, was allowed.
2. The facts, as emanating from the paper book, are that the claimants, filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short 'the MV Act') claiming compensation on account of the death of one Shiv Devi, in a motor vehicular accident which took place on 07.01.2023.
3. It was pleaded that on 07.01.2023, deceased-Shiv Devi, aged 52 years, was going from Village Jagatpura to Sector 34-Chandigarh on her bicycle and was being followed by her son on a separate bicycle. When at about 7.20 AM, they were crossing the green signal at the light point of Sectors 50/49/45/46, Chandigarh, a PRTC bus bearing Registration No.PB-13-AL-8942 (hereinafter referred to as `the offending vehicle'), which was being driven in a rash and negligent manner by respondent No.3, struck the bicycle of the deceased from behind and she was run over by the rear tyres of the offending vehicle. She suffered serious injuries and was taken to GMCH-32, Chandigarh, where she was declared as brought dead. FIR No.3 dated 2 of 6 ::: Downloaded on - 29-11-2025 06:15:35 ::: FAO-4695-2024 (O&M) [3] 07.01.2023 under Sections 279, 304-A IPC was registered at Police Station Sector 49, Chandigarh against respondent No.3. It was pleaded that the deceased used to work as a cook in different houses earning Rs.30,000/- p.m. Accordingly, a sum of Rs.50 lakhs along with interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of filing of the claim petition till realization, had been claimed by the claimants being the legal representatives of deceased-Shiv Devi.
4. The claim petition was opposed by the respondents. In the written statement filed by respondent Nos.1 and 2, the factum of accident was admitted, but it was averred that the accident had taken place due to the negligence of the cyclist (deceased). The negligence on the part of respondent No.3, while driving the offending vehicle, was denied.
5. In a separate written statement filed by respondent No.3, it was pleaded that the bicycle of the deceased lost its balance when one motorcycle tried to pass from her left side and struck with the handle of the bicycle due to which the deceased fell under the rear tyres of the offending vehicle. It was further stated that a false FIR had been registered against respondent No.3.
6. From the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed:-
"1. Whether accident resulting into death of Mrs. Shiv Devi who late Sh. Suresh took place due to 3 of 6 ::: Downloaded on - 29-11-2025 06:15:35 ::: FAO-4695-2024 (O&M) [4] rash and negligent driving of offending vehicle bearing registration No.PB-13-AL-8942 by respondent No.3 Ajit Singh ? OPP
2. Whether claimants are entitled to compensation for death of Mrs. Shiv Devi w/o late Sh. Suresh due to the accident in question, if so, to what extent and from whom? OPP
3. Whether the claim petition is not maintainable in its present form? OPR
4. Relief."
7. Parties led their respective evidence.
8. Vide award dated 01.12.2023, the MACT, assessed the compensation as under:-
Sr. Head under which amount Amount
No. awarded
1. Loss of dependency Rs.17,16,000/-
2. Loss of parental consortium Rs.2,40,000/-
to claimants No.1 to 5 being
children of the deceased
3. Funeral expenses Rs.18,000/-
4. Loss of Estate Rs.18,000/-
Total compensation Rs.19,92,000/-
9. Aggrieved against the award passed by the MACT, appellants-PRTC, have filed the instant appeal.
10. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant.
11. Learned counsel for the appellants has vehemently argued that the accident had taken place because of the bicycle of the deceased having been struck by a motorcycle. It is further argued that on account of the same, the bicycle of the deceased lost its balance and she 4 of 6 ::: Downloaded on - 29-11-2025 06:15:35 ::: FAO-4695-2024 (O&M) [5] fell down and came under the rear tyres of the offending vehicle. It is further argued that under these circumstances, it cannot be said that the accident, as a result of which the deceased had suffered fatal injuries and subsequently died, had taken place on account of the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by its driver.
12. I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the appellant, but find the same to be devoid of any merit.
13. First of all, it may be noticed that PW1-Ramjeet who was an eye witness to the accident, deposed about the manner in which the accident had taken place. He had also deposed that the bicycle which the deceased was riding, had been struck by the offending vehicle as a result of which she came under its rear tyres. It may further be noticed that it was this Ramjeet, who was the complainant in FIR No.3 dated 07.01.2023, registered at Police Station Sector 49, Chandigarh, under Sections 279 and 304-A IPC.
14. Further, the FIR was registered on the same date on which the accident had taken place, narrating the manner in which the accident occurred. Though respondent No.3 (driver of the offending vehicle) also appeared as RW-1 yet he could not demolish the case set up by the claimants in any manner. As a matter of fact, he admitted the factum of registration of the FIR against him and the fact that on 5 of 6 ::: Downloaded on - 29-11-2025 06:15:35 ::: FAO-4695-2024 (O&M) [6] the date of accident, he had been driving the offending vehicle. He further deposed that he had not filed any representation before any higher authority stating that he had falsely been implicated in the aforesaid FIR. Had respondent No.3 been falsely implicated, then being a Government servant, he ought to have run from pillar to post to agitate against the said fact, which admittedly he did not do.
15. That being so, this Court finds that the MACT rightly held that the accident had taken place on account of the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by respondent No.3.
16. The findings recorded by the MACT are based on evidence on record. It could not be pointed out that any evidence has been misread or not taken into consideration.
17. In view of the above, finding no merit in the present appeal, the same is hereby dismissed.
18. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.
(VIKRAM AGGARWAL) JUDGE 20.11.2025 ds Uploaded on: 28.11.2025 Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No 6 of 6 ::: Downloaded on - 29-11-2025 06:15:35 :::