Punjab-Haryana High Court
Ram Kumar And Anr vs Ishwar And Ors on 23 February, 2026
FAO-1897-2020 (O&M) 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
246 FAO-1897-2020(O&M)
Date of decision: 23.02.2026
Ram Kumar & anr. ....Appellants
Versus
Ishwar & ors. ....Respondents
CORAM:- HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA
Present:- Mr. Sanchit Poonia, Advocate
for the appellants.
None for the respondents.
NIDHI GUPTA, J.
1. The present appeal has been filed by the claimants seeking se"ng aside of the Award dated 10.12.2019 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Hisar (for short "the learned Tribunal"), whereby claim pe..on No.131 of 2018 dated 18.07.2018 filed by the appellants under Sec.on 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereina4er referred to as 'the Act') has been dismissed. The two claimants are 62-year-old father and 52- year-old mother of the deceased Amarjeet, who was 23 years old at the .me of accident.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the ld. Tribunal on the basis of pleadings and evidence adduced by the par.es concluded that the appellants had failed to prove that the deceased Amarjeet had died due to injuries suffered by him in a motor vehicular accident that took place on 23.04.2018 at 10 PM due to the rash and negligent driving of the Escorts Tractor bearing Registra.on No.HR-21M-3005 (hereina4er "the offending vehicle"); being 1 of 5 ::: Downloaded on - 26-02-2026 21:29:22 ::: FAO-1897-2020 (O&M) 2 driven by respondent No.1, owned by respondent No.2 and insured by respondent No.3. The learned Tribunal concluded as above on the ground that "when the circumstances a ending to the case speaks volume that respondent No.1 has been arranged later on as driver of the offending tractor and tractor number has been arranged with the sole inten on to extract compensa on.
3. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the learned Tribunal was in patent error in dismissing the claim pe..on as it failed to appreciate the oral and documentary evidence on record; and also failed to appreciate that respondent No.1 is facing criminal trial in FIR No.188, dated 24.04.2018 registered under Sec.ons 279 & 304-A IPC, at Police Sta.on City Hansi, District Hisar. It is submiDed that even challan has been filed against respondent No.1, therefore, there was no reason to disbelieve the case set up by the appellants. It is accordingly prayed that the present Appeal be allowed; and the impugned Award be set aside.
4. No other argument is made on behalf of the appellants. I have heard learned counsel for the appellants and perused the case file in detail. I find no merit in the submissions advanced on behalf of the appellants.
5. A perusal of the record of the case shows that FIR No.188 dated 24.04.2018 was registered on the basis of statement made by PW1 Pritam Singh eyewitness. However, Pritam Singh eyewitness has given contradictory statements, which were not trustworthy. It is to be noted that the above said FIR was registered against an unknown vehicle and unknown person. As per first statement given by PW-1 to the Police, he had stated that due to 2 of 5 ::: Downloaded on - 26-02-2026 21:29:23 ::: FAO-1897-2020 (O&M) 3 darkness he could not note down the number of the offending vehicle. As per the final report under sec.on 173 CRPC, on the very next day, PW-1 had made supplementary statement that he had come to know the number of Tractor as HR-21M-3005 and that it was being driven by Ishwar Singh-respondent No.1. During his cross-examina.on PW-1 has stated that his statement was recorded on 01.05.2018 in Killa Chowki, Hansi; and it is admiDed that details of the person who told him the number of the tractor and name of driver is not men.oned in the said statement. Thus, evidence of the eyewitness/complainant is not reliable. PW-1 was unable to explain the contradic.ons in his statement. If his statement made at the .me of registering the FIR is to be believed, then details of the offending vehicle were not known due to the fact that a4er the accident, the driver had fled away from the spot and that accident had taken place at 10.00 PM and in the darkness, PW-1 could not note down the number of the tractor. Accordingly, FIR was registered against unknown driver and unknown vehicle by PW1. However, during cross-examina.on, PW-1 has men.oned the colour of the offending vehicle to be blue; whereas in the FIR colour of the offending vehicle is not men.oned. Further, there is no explana.on on record as to how vide supplementary statement, PW-1 has given the number of the offending tractor as also men.oned name of respondent No.1-Ishwar Singh. Thus, there are discrepancies and inconsistencies in the case set up by the appellants.
6. Moreover, the appellants have failed to examine the Inves.ga.ng Officer, who could have informed whether the accident was caused by respondent No.1 or not.
3 of 5 ::: Downloaded on - 26-02-2026 21:29:23 ::: FAO-1897-2020 (O&M) 4 Relevant findings of the ld. Tribunal are in para 13 of the impugned Award, which reads as follows:-
"13. A er perusing the evidence placed on record carefully this Tribunal has no reason to discard the arguments of learned counsel for the respondent No.3. This Tribunal does not find the tes mony of PW1 Pritam Singh, alleged eye-witness to be trust worthy. In this case, Pritam Singh the uncle of the deceased is shown to be the eye witness of the accident. As per Pritam Singh PW1 on 23.4.2018, he was going to village Lalpura on his motor cycle whereas son of his brother namely Amarjeet was also going on his motor cycle bearing registra on No. HR-21G-1509 ahead of him to meet his friend in village Lalpura and at about 10 PM, when they reached near Sardaron Ki Dhani on Lalpura Road, then his nephew tried to cross tractor trolley going ahead, then unknown driver of tractor trolley took right turn and hit his tractor trolley into his nephew, as a result of which his nephew fell down on the road and suffered mul ple and grievous injuries. On the way to hospital, his nephew succumbed to his injuries. As per statement made to the police on the next day of accident, PW1 Pritam Singh stated that a er the accident tractor driver fled away from the spot and due to darkness he could not note down the number of the tractor, which was being driven by unknown driver. Accident is shown to have been caused by unknown driver and unknown vehicle and FIR has been lodged on the statement of Pritam Singh. When Pritam Singh stepped into the witness box as PW1 then during cross-examina on he has stated that colour of the tractor was blue whereas in the FIR, colour of the tractor is not men oned nor this witness was able to note down the number of tractor due to darkness. PW1 in his cross-examina on has stated that the number was affixed on the tractor and not trolley. PW1 was going behind the tractor and in such a situa on the person going on motor cycle cannot read the
4 of 5 ::: Downloaded on - 26-02-2026 21:29:23 ::: FAO-1897-2020 (O&M) 5 number men oned on the tractor which is a ached with the trolley especially when it is dark and no electricity was there at the spot. Perusal of final report under sec on 173 Cr.P.C. which is part of Ex.P1 would show that this witness suffered supplementary statement on the same day wherein he has men oned that he came to know the number of tractor as HR- 21M-3005 and it was being driven by Ishwar Singh, whereas during cross-examina on he has stated that his statement was recorded on 1.5.2018 in Killa Chowki, Hansi and who told him the number of the tractor and name of driver is not men oned. The evidence of eye witness is not consistent."
7. Learned counsel for the appellants is unable to dispute or controvert the abovesaid findings recorded by learned Tribunal.
8. In view of the discussion above, I find no error in the impugned award passed by the learned Tribunal. Accordingly, the present appeal stands dismissed.
9. Pending applica.on(s) if any also stand(s) disposed of.
(NIDHI GUPTA)
23.02.2026 JUDGE
monika
i) Whether speaking/reasoned? Yes/No
ii) Whether reportable? Yes/No
5 of 5
::: Downloaded on - 26-02-2026 21:29:23 :::