Gulshan, etc. vs. Balwan Singh, etc.

BEFORE AMARINDER SHARMA, PRESIDING OFFICER,

MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, YAMUNA NAGAR
AT JAGADHRI (UID No.HR0186)

C.N.R. No. HRYN01-00-6472-2019 C.I.S. No. MACP-182-2019

Date of Institution: 27.05.2019
Date of Decision: 13.09.2022

1. Gulshan wife of Late Rajesh Kumar, aged 24 years (Wife of

deceased)
2. Keshav son of Late Rajesh Kumar, age 4 years (Minor son of
Deceased Late Rajesh Kumar)
3. Daksh son of Late Rajesh Kumar, age 2 years, (Minor son of
Deceased late Rajesh Kumar)
Claimant no.2 and 3 are represented through claimant no.1 being
best and natural guardian.
4. Budh Ram son of Ram Kishan, aged 52 years, (Father of deceased
Late Rajesh Kumar)

All resident of Village Ghanaula, Tehsil Jagadhri, District

Yamuna Nagar.
....… Claimants/Petitioners

Versus

1. Balwan Singh son of Maan Singh, r/o village Ghadaula, Tehsil

Jagadhri, District Yamuna Nagar. (Driver of Offending Tractor
bearing no. HR 02 M-2414)

2. Krishan Lal son of Jai Singh, r/o village Tejli, P.O Fatehpur, Tehsil
Jagadhri, District Yamuna Nagar. (Owner of Offending Tractor
bearing no. HR 02 M-2414)

3. Oriental Insurance Company Limited through its Branch Manager,

Opposite Hindu Girls College Jagadhri, District Yamuna Nagar.
(Insurer of Offending Tractor bearing no. HR 02 M-2414)

.......Respondents.

Claim Petition under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act

(Amarinder Sharma)
MACT/Yamuna Nagar at Jagadhri
13.09.2022 (UID No.HR0186)
 Gulshan, etc. vs. Balwan Singh, etc.

***

Argued by: Shri Ajay Deep Singh, counsel for the claimants.
Shri Sachin Bhagwangarh, counsel for respondent no.1.
Shri Krishan Kumar Kulchandu, counsel for respondent no.2.
Shri Parmod Gupta, counsel for respondent no.3.
AWARD:

The claimants have filed this petition under Section 166 of

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, for seeking compensation to the tune of Rs.50

lakh on account of death of Late Rajesh Kumar which occurred in a

roadside accident, which allegedly took place on 08.08.2018 on account

of rash and negligent driving of offending tractor bearing no. HR-02M-

2414 at the time of accident.

Dossier of facts

2. The necessary facts relating to the claim petition are that on

on 08.08.2018, Rakesh Kumar alongwith his brother Rajesh Kumar and

other persons went to Haridwar in a tractor trolley for Kawad religious

purpose. At around 10.00 p.m, in the night, when they reached near City

Hospital on Bahadurgarh Road, Haridwar, on their proper side at the said

time, the tractor trolley in which they had come was being driven by

respondent no.1 in a very rash and negligent manner and in utter violation

of all the traffic rules and at very high speed and the eye witness many

times told him to drive slowly at the said time. Rajesh alongwith other

persons and Rakesh Kumar was going ahead to him and respondent no.1

rashly and negligently crushed Rajesh by his tractor bearing no. HR 02

(Amarinder Sharma)
MACT/Yamuna Nagar at Jagadhri
13.09.2022 (UID No.HR0186)
 Gulshan, etc. vs. Balwan Singh, etc.

M-2414 as he was driving rashly and negligently. Thereafter, Rakesh

Kumar and other persons made hue and cry and took the injured to

Yamuna Nagar in the tractor trolley as he was conscious at the time of

accident but when they reached Yamuna Nagar, he died due to the injuries

suffered by him in this accident. Thereafter, Zero FIR was registered

against respondent no.1 at P.S Chhachhrauli, under section 279,304 A IPC

on the statement of Rakesh Kumar and post mortem of deceased was

conducted at Civil Hospital, Yamuna Nagar. Thereafter said Zero FIR was

forwarded to S.P Office Haridwar for registration of FIR on which one

FIR bearing no. 671 dated 27.08.2018 under section 279,304 A IPC P.S

Jwalpur was registered against respondent no.1.

Withal, the deceased was 26 years of age at the time of accident and

was running one dairy farm in his village and was earning around Rs.

30,000/- from that profession. The accident took place on account of rash

and negligent driver of vehicle in question by respondent no.1, owned by

respondent no.2 and insured with respondent no.3. Hence, all respondents

are jointly and equally liable to pay the amount of compensation

alongwith interest and costs.

Stand of respondent no.1:

3. Upon notice, respondent No. 1 appeared and filed written

statement submitting that no such accident was caused by respondent

no.1. It is submitted that the alleged accident was not result of negligent

(Amarinder Sharma)
MACT/Yamuna Nagar at Jagadhri
13.09.2022 (UID No.HR0186)
 Gulshan, etc. vs. Balwan Singh, etc.

driving of answering respondent. Rest of averments of claimants has been

denied to be wrong and a prayer for dismissal of the same was made.

Stand of respondent no.2:

4. Upon notice, respondent No. 2 appeared and filed written statement

submitting that no such accident was caused by respondent no.1.It is

submitted that the alleged accident was not result of negligent driving of

respondent no.1.Rest of averments of claimants has been denied to be

wrong and a prayer for dismissal of the same was made.

Stand of respondent no.3

5. Upon notice, respondent no.3 appeared and filed written statement

submitting that negligence was of deceased who took the risk of his life

by his ownself by traveling in tractor trolley as alleged and driver and

owner has violated the terms and conditions of the policy as vehicle was

strictly insured for agricultural and forestry purposes and not for carrying

persons for hire and reward. It is further maintained that alleged vehicle in

question was being driven without valid and effective driving licence, RC

and other documents in violation of terms and conditions of the policy and

the law. The averments of claimant regarding his age and income has been

pleaded to be wrong. On merits, the version of claimants was denied and a

prayer was made for dismissal of petition.

6. From the pleadings of the parties, following issues were

framed vide order dated 11.12.2019:

(Amarinder Sharma)
MACT/Yamuna Nagar at Jagadhri
13.09.2022 (UID No.HR0186)
 Gulshan, etc. vs. Balwan Singh, etc.

1. Whether the accident in question resulting into death of

Rajesh Kumar son of Budh Ram took place due to rash
and negligent driving of tractor bearing registration no.
HR 02-M-2414 by respondent no.1 ?OPP

2. If issue No.1 is proved in affirmative, what amount of

compensation the petitioners are entitled to on account
of death of Rajesh Kumar ?OPP

3. Whether tractor bearing registration no HR 02-M-2414

in question was being driven in violation of the terms
and conditions of the insurance policy? If so, to what
effect? OPR-3

4. Relief.

7. To establish his claim through this enquiry, claimant no.1

examined herself as PW1 and further examined Rakesh eye witness as

PW2 and Vikas Kumar as PW3 . It would be appropriate to elaborate the

documentary evidence which have been tendered on record. They are

indicated in table no.1 below:

“Table No. 1”

ExP1 Certified copy of FIR no. 671 dated 27.08.2018

Ex P2 Certified copy of superdari order
Ex P3 Certified copy of PMR of deceased
Ex P4 Certified copy of report under section 173 CR.P.C
Mark A Copy of FIR

8. On the other hand, respondents have tendered the documents

as are indicated in table no.2 below:

“Table No. 2”

Ex.R1 Copy of Driving licence of respondent no.1.

(Amarinder Sharma)
MACT/Yamuna Nagar at Jagadhri
13.09.2022 (UID No.HR0186)
 Gulshan, etc. vs. Balwan Singh, etc.

Ex.R2 Copy of RC of offending vehicle

Ex R3 Insurance Policy
Ex R4 Certified copy of vehicle registration status.

9. No evidence in rebuttal was led by the claimants and the

rebuttal evidence was closed by the learned counsel for the claimants vide

separate statement of even date.

Arguments advanced by learned counsel for claimants.

10. Learned counsel for the claimants has submitted and prayed

for grant of compensation of ₹50 lakh on account of the death of the

deceased and in support of his contentions, the learned counsel has placed

reliance upon the case laws titled as National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs.

Pranay Sethi and others, 2017 (4) RCR (Civil)1009. He has further

submitted that the documentary and oral evidence on behalf of claimants

is convincing and unequivocal in nature and that the claimants have been

able to establish that the death of deceased took place due to the rash and

negligent driving of respondent no.1 and that as per the various heads, the

claimants are entitled for compensation of Rs. 50 lakhs as prayed for in

the claim petition.

Arguments advanced by learned counsels for respondents no.1 and 2:

11. Learned counsels for respondents no.1 and 2 have jointly

maintained that that there was no negligence on the part of respondent

no.1. Moreover, vehicle in question was duly insured with respondent

no.3. A prayer for dismissal of the petition has been made.

(Amarinder Sharma)
MACT/Yamuna Nagar at Jagadhri
13.09.2022 (UID No.HR0186)
 Gulshan, etc. vs. Balwan Singh, etc.

Arguments advanced by learned counsel for respondents no.3

12. Learned counsel for respondent no.3 has submitted that the

present claim petition is liable to be dismissed as negligence was of

deceased who took the risk of his life of his own by traveling in tractor

trolley as alleged and driver and owner has violated the terms and

conditions of the policy as vehicle was strictly insured for agricultural

and forestry purposes and not for carrying persons for hire and reward. It

is further maintained that alleged vehicle in question was being driven

without valid and effective driving licence, RC and other documents in

violation of terms and conditions of the policy and the law. The attention

of the court is invited towards the complete available facts and

circumstances of the present case and a prayer has been made for

dismissal of petition. Learned counsel for the respondent no.3 has placed

reliance upon the the case laws as follows:

Sr. Authorities.
No.
1. Lachho Ram and others Vs. Himachal Road Transport Corpn.
Civil Appeal no.2570 of 2008 (SC) DOD 28.01.2014
2. Beesaha vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Accident and
Compensation Cases Vol. II, 689

13. I have heard the learned counsel for the claimants and learned

counsels for respondents who have argued as per the pleas and have gone

through the record meticulously. My findings on various issues are as

under:

(Amarinder Sharma)
MACT/Yamuna Nagar at Jagadhri
13.09.2022 (UID No.HR0186)
 Gulshan, etc. vs. Balwan Singh, etc.

ISSUE NO.1:

14. Onus to prove this issue was upon the claimants. In the

present claim petition, the material question which needs to be

adjudicated is whether there are sufficient, justifiable and reasonable

grounds which call out to allow the present claim petition. Although, the

claimants have maintained that they are entitled for the claim on account

of death of deceased in a road side accident which allegedly took place

on 08.08.2018. However, in juxtaposition to it, the insurance company

has denied for their entitlement for any claim on various grounds

including material concealment of facts.

At the outset, it is relevant to mention that the cases under the

Motor Vehicle Act, have to be decided primarily on the basis of evidence

and compensation, if at all, has to be given only in terms of the settled

parameters of law and not on account of any false claim. The Motor

Vehicle Act is welfare legislation and is aimed at coming to the succor of

the accident victims. It is settled law that fair and just compensation

should not be denied to the rightful claimants, however at the same time,

it is equally settled that the compensation should not be windfall for

unscrupulous elements. The present claim petition has to be adjudicated

taking into account the above mentioned jurisprudential backdrop.

After careful examining the entire facts and circumstances, on the

case file, this Tribunal is convinced that the claimants have concealed the

material particulars from the present Tribunal and there are no other

(Amarinder Sharma)
MACT/Yamuna Nagar at Jagadhri
13.09.2022 (UID No.HR0186)
 Gulshan, etc. vs. Balwan Singh, etc.

convincing and reliable circumstances which can give strength to the

version of claimants regarding the mode and manner in which the alleged

accident took place. It is relevant to reiterate that the present claim

petition has been brought on the ground that the deceased Rajesh Kumar

and other persons went to Haridwar for the purpose of Kawad and it was

while returning back, when the accused was running with the Kawad that

allegedly the respondent no.1 caused the accident and crushed the

deceased with the offending tractor. It forms the part of the pleadings that

immediately after the accident, injured/deceased was brought to Yamuna

Nagar and thereafter, Zero FIR was registered in the Yamuna Nagar and

even the post mortem was conducted at Yamuna Nagar.

First and foremost, it has been completely unexplained on the case

file that if the accident took place much beyond the jurisdiction of

Yamuna Nagar, then rather providing immediate first aid and medical

treatment at the spot of occurrence, why it was preferred that

injured/deceased was made to travel all the way to Yamuna Nagar for his

treatment. Rather, the pleadings are sufficiently transparent to deduce that

the alleged accident took place at Haridwar.

Furthermore, the deposition of various witnesses who have been

examined are also not of the nature which can help to give strength to the

version of claimants. The deposition of Gulshan examined as PW1 is

pertaining to the income of deceased Rajesh Kumar and she has admitted

in her cross-examination that she has no proof regarding expenditure of 2

(Amarinder Sharma)
MACT/Yamuna Nagar at Jagadhri
13.09.2022 (UID No.HR0186)
 Gulshan, etc. vs. Balwan Singh, etc.

lakh on the last rites of the deceased. Moreover, she is not the eye witness

of the incident and she does not even remember the date of birth of her

deceased husband. She has further deposed that she has no proof

regarding income, occupation of her deceased husband or that any dairy

was maintained by her husband. Moreover, Rakesh examined as PW2 was

the most material witness of the present case and has tendered his

affidavit Ex PW2/A. In his affidavit itself, he has admitted that the tractor

trolley was used for the purpose of Kawad (religious purpose). He has

also admitted that the accident took place near City Hospital at

Bahadurgarh road at about 10.00 p.m. His overall version was duly tested

in his detailed cross-examination as he has deposed that he is younger

brother of deceased Rajesh. He does not remember the date and month of

his birth. They were coming after taking dak kawad and were running in

front of the tractor. The diesel was filled in tractor from village and the

amount was paid by contribution. He has further deposed that Balwan was

the main elder person and they all were youngsters. He has further

admitted that the hospital of Bahadurgarh is near to the place of accident.

He has further deposed that the FIR was lodged on his statement and his

Advocate was also present at Trauma Center, Yamuna Nagar. He has

further deposed that injured/deceased was taken by a car by all of them

and denied the suggestion that a false FIR has been registered against

respondent no.1. Furthermore, it has also been admitted by him during the

cross-examination which was conducted on respondent no1 and 2 that he

(Amarinder Sharma)
MACT/Yamuna Nagar at Jagadhri
13.09.2022 (UID No.HR0186)
 Gulshan, etc. vs. Balwan Singh, etc.

did not see the RC and paper of this tractor trolley earlier, but when they

were going to bring kawad, at that time, he saw the papers. He has

admitted that as per the custom of dak kawad they cannot stop and have to

run regularly. He has further deposed that the distance between Haridwar

and their village is about 125 km and that there was rush at Haridwar and

also admitted that there was crowd in between Haridwar and Saharanpur

and various medical and eatable joints/Shivars were open near the road.

He has also admitted that police was on duty at some distance. He has

reiterated that they were running in front of the tractor and they ran for

another 20-25 minutes after the accident took place. Moreover, the tractor

hit from back side.

PW3 Vikas Kumar is a formal witness who has proved document

(mark A) which is the Zero FIR dated 09.08.2018.

This is the entire oral evidence adduced on the case record by the

claimants and after microscopic scrutiny of entire available gamut of facts

and circumstances, this Tribunal is convinced that there are no such

cogent and convincing grounds which can give impetus to the vague and

indistinct assertions of the claimants. The deposition of PW2 assumes

significance as the rashness and negligence on the part of respondent no.1

has not been established by way of preponderance of probabilities. Rather,

it is well settled that simply the involvement of any vehicle in the accident

cannot make the respondent liable to pay compensation unless it can be

held on basis of material on record, that the accident was caused by the

(Amarinder Sharma)
MACT/Yamuna Nagar at Jagadhri
13.09.2022 (UID No.HR0186)
 Gulshan, etc. vs. Balwan Singh, etc.

rash and negligent act of the driver of the offending vehicle. Reliance in

this regard is placed on Lachho Ram and others Vs. Himachal Road

Transport Corpn. Civil Appeal no.2570 of 2008 (SC) DOD 28.01.2014

In the present case and in the available sequence of events, it rather

appears that it was deceased himself who was rash and negligent.

Furthermore, as per the version of PW2, both PW2 as well as deceased

were running in front of the tractor on the road which is meant for plying

of the vehicles. It is not the case of claimants that the deceased was

running on the side of the road or katcha berm. Admittedly, both PW2 as

well as the deceased were performing the dak kawad and the tractor

trolley in question was not driven by some stranger, rather as per the

version of PW2 all of them had contributed and the said tractor trolley

went from their own village to Haridwar for the purpose of kawad.

Whether, the tractor trolley was authorized to carry so many persons and

to be plied on road for the purposes as enumerated by PW2. In this regard,

document Ex R4 assumes significance as the said document indicates the

vehicle registration status and mentions the vehicle class as agricultural

tractor. Albeit, the available gamut of facts as well as the oral testimonies

of the witnesses of the claimants themselves mentions that the tractor

trolley was plied from the village to Haridwar for the purpose of Kawad

and admittedly, various persons from the village contributed for the diesel

and went to Haridwar. It has also been admitted that the distance of

Haridwar from their village is around 125 km. In such circumstances,

(Amarinder Sharma)
MACT/Yamuna Nagar at Jagadhri
13.09.2022 (UID No.HR0186)
 Gulshan, etc. vs. Balwan Singh, etc.

certainly the vehicle being alleged offending vehicle was used against the

norms as it was registered as an agricultural tractor. Moreover, whereas it

has been well conceded on record that the accident took place on

Bahadurgarh near City Hospital, however, it remains unexplained on the

case record as to why immediately the injured was not taken to City

Hospital which was near the place of the occurrence and under what

circumstances, he was brought all the way to Yamuna Nagar. The said

circumstance has therefore, remained completely unexplained on the case

file. The entire case put forth by the claimants further gets under shadow

of doubt as PW2 has gone to the extent to depose that even after the

accident, they kept running for 20-25 minutes. How is that even possible

that an injured or any other eye witness can keep running even after the

accident of such a magnitude (as alleged). The said admission of PW2

therefore, gives strength to the version of learned counsel for respondents

no.1 and 2 that the possibility of collapsed lung because of excessive

running cannot be ruled out. It is relevant to mention that pneumothorax

occurs when air leaks into space between lung and chest wall. This air

pushes on the outside of the lung and makes it collapse. A pneumothorax

can be a complete lung collapse or a collapse of only a portion of the lung.

In this regard the PMR report assumes significance as the entire report

merely mentions the cause of death to be due to injury to the right lung,

resulting into hemorrhage and shock which is sufficient to cause of death

in ordinary course of life. No such injuries are mentioned in the PMR

(Amarinder Sharma)
MACT/Yamuna Nagar at Jagadhri
13.09.2022 (UID No.HR0186)
 Gulshan, etc. vs. Balwan Singh, etc.

report which can in any manner lead to a definite conclusion that the

cause of accident was any accident. Normally in cases of accident, (that

too with such a heavy vehicle in the nature as discribed that the alleged

offending vehicle being the tractor which is alleged to have crushed the

deceased), there are multiple injuries on the body of the deceased and

rather, the tyre marks and other injuries are so evident that the PMR report

also mentions about the possibility of the accident. However, in the

present case the only cause of death which has been mentioned in the

PMR report is the injury to the vital organ and that too only to the right

lung. Hence, this Tribunal is of the considered view that the entire case

put forth by the claimants rests on vague, indeterminate and hazy

assertions. It remains further relevant to mention that the Insurance Policy

of offending vehicle Ex R3 is clear with regard to the limitations as to use.

In that regard, it has been detailed in the Insurance Policy itself, that the

vehicle has to be used only for agricultural and forestry purposes and the

policy also does not cover for use for hire and reward. Evidently, there has

been breach of very basic terms of the insurance policy as the tractor was

admittedly not used for agricultural and forestry purpose. Moreover, even

it has been admitted by PW2 that the diesel was filled by contribution and

hence the use of tractor as hire and reward cannot be ruled out. Withal, the

rashness and negligence, on the part of the offending vehicle and

respondent no.1, which was material to have been established by way of

preponderance of evidence has not been established on the case file. It is

(Amarinder Sharma)
MACT/Yamuna Nagar at Jagadhri
13.09.2022 (UID No.HR0186)
 Gulshan, etc. vs. Balwan Singh, etc.

equally settled that the insurance company cannot be made liable in case

there is breach of terms and conditions of insurance policy. Reliance in

this regard is placed Beesaha vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd.

Accident and Compensation Cases Vol. II, 689.

Even otherwise, the claimants have remained unsuccessful to give

propulsion to their version and it was always open for the claimants to

have examined the doctor considering the contents of the PMR report.

Furthermore, the entire sequence of events, whereby inspite of the civil

hospital (near the place of occurrence), the injured was brought all the

way to Yamuna Nagar. Furthermore, admission of PW2 that they were

running on the road in front of the tractor for dak kawad, also his

admission that even after the accident, they kept for running for 20-25

minutes, no details of the car on which allegedly the injured was brought

all the way to Yamuna Nagar, the PMR report which indicates the cause of

death to be injury to the vital organ I.e. right lung, registration of FIR at

Yamuna nagar on the next day inspite of accident having not taken place

at Ymauna Nagar, admission of PW2 that they all contributed money for

the purpose of filling diesel in the tractor, the tractor being agricultural

tractor which was plied from all the way to the village to Haridwar for dak

kawad (as per the document Ex R4), violation of the terms of the

insurance policy Ex R3 which mentions the limitation as to use, the non

reliable testimonies of oral witnesses examined by the claimants as well

as taking into the account the entire gamut of admissible evidence on the

(Amarinder Sharma)
MACT/Yamuna Nagar at Jagadhri
13.09.2022 (UID No.HR0186)
 Gulshan, etc. vs. Balwan Singh, etc.

case file, this Tribunal is convinced that there are no reliable and

convincing circumstance which can shift the balance of probabilities on

the basis of preponderance of evidence in favour of the claimants. The

claimants have failed to prove this issue in their favour and hence, issue

no1 is decided against the claimants.

ISSUE NO.2

14. After deciding issue no.1 against the claimants, no finding is

required on this issue and this issue has become redundant and disposed

off accordingly.

ISSUE NO 3 :

15. Onus to prove this issue was upon respondent no 3.

Insurance Policy of offending vehicle Ex R3 is clear with regard to the

limitations as to use. In that regard, it has been detailed in the Insurance

Policy itself, that the vehicle has to be used only for agricultural and

forestry purposes and the policy also does not cover for use for hire and

reward. Evidently, there has been breach of very basic terms of the

insurance policy as the tractor was admittedly not used for agricultural

and forestry purpose. Hence, it has been established that offending vehicle

was driven in violation of terms and conditions of Insurance Policy. This

issue is accordingly, decided in favour of respondent no.3.

RELIEF

16. As a sequel to aforesaid discussion, since the very factum of

accident and rashness and negligent of respondent no.1 is not

(Amarinder Sharma)
MACT/Yamuna Nagar at Jagadhri
13.09.2022 (UID No.HR0186)
 Gulshan, etc. vs. Balwan Singh, etc.

proved , as well as taking into account the vague and indeterminate

assertions of the claimants, the instant claim petition is dismissed with

costs. Counsel fee is assessed as ₹ 1100/-each. Memo of costs be

prepared. File be consigned to the records after due compliance.

Ahlmad is directed that the file for consignment should be prepared

as per clauses 3, 4, 5 and 6 of Chapter 16F Volume-IV of High Court

Rules and Orders (i.e. arranging the files in Part A & B) so that the record

which is to be destroyed/weeded out shall be kept separately from the

initial stage. Reader/Ahlmad are also directed to prepare the list of the

witnesses and exhibits, if any, at the end in an annexure form as per clause

(9) of Rule 2 of Chapter 11, Volume-I, Part A of the Rules and Orders of

Punjab and Haryana High Court.

Pronounced in open Court. (Amarinder Sharma)

Dated: 13.09.2022 Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal
Yamuna Nagar at Jagadhri
(UID No. HR0186)

Note: All pages of this judgment have been directly dictated on computer,
checked and signed by me.

(Amarinder Sharma)
Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal
Yamuna Nagar at Jagadhri
(UID No. HR0186)
gitika

(Amarinder Sharma)
MACT/Yamuna Nagar at Jagadhri
13.09.2022 (UID No.HR0186)
 Gulshan, etc. vs. Balwan Singh, etc.

C.N.R. No. HRYN01-00-6472-2019 C.I.S. No. MACP-182-2019

Argued by: Shri Ajay Deep Singh, counsel for the claimants.
Shri Sachin Bhagwangarh, counsel for respondent no.1.
Shri Krishan Kumar Kulchandu, counsel for respondent no.2.
Shri Parmod Gupta, counsel for respondent no.3.

Learned counsel for the respondent no.3 representing the Insurance

Company has given a separate statement to the effect that he does not

press his application dated 17.02.2020 under section 170 for permission to

cross examine the witnesses on the point of negligence. Thereafter,

learned counsel for claimant has closed rebuttal evidence vide separate

statement. Arguments heard. Vide my separate award of even date, the

present claim petition has been dismissed with costs. Counsel fee is

assessed as ₹ 1100/-each. Memo of costs be prepared. File be consigned

to the record room, after due compliance.

Pronounced in open Court. (Amarinder Sharma)

Dated: 13.09.2022 Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal
Yamuna Nagar at Jagadhri
(UID No. HR0186)

gitika

(Amarinder Sharma)
MACT/Yamuna Nagar at Jagadhri
13.09.2022 (UID No.HR0186)