Sumitra Devi vs State Of U.T. Chd & Ors
2024 Latest Caselaw 13469 P&H

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Sumitra Devi vs State Of U.T. Chd & Ors on 2 August, 2024

LAVISHA
2024.08.02 17:32
I attest to the accuracy and

207

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH

FAO-4729-2004
DECIDED ON: 02.08.2024

SUMITRADEVT ae APPELLANT
VERSUS

STATE OF U.T.CHD& ORS. aa. RESPONDENTS

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY VASHISTH.
Present: None for the appellant.

Mr. Sumeet Jain, Advocate,
for the respondent -- UT, Chandigarh.

SANJAY VASHISTH, J (ORAL)

1. Appellant namely Sumitra Devi, has filed present appeal by challenging the award dated 17.08.2004 passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT), Chandigarh, whereby the claim petition filed by the injured -- appellant was dismissed.

2. Learned Tribunal made an observation that the injured has failed in proving the involvement of bus in question with the alleged accident, and another witness namely Naresh Kumar (PW-1) is opined to be tutored witness, who was introduced later on in order to claim the compensation.

3. In paragraph No.9 of the award, learned Tribunal has also discussed the evidence available on record i.e. the statement of Kashmira Singh (RW-1) who categorically deposed that "no accident took place

with his bus nor any case was registered on account of any accident on

authenticity of this order/judgment Punjab & Haryana High Court,

Chandigarh

FAO-4729-2004. -2- that date". Said statement is corroborated by another witness namely

Baljinder Singh, Conductor (RW-2).

4. Today, there is no representation on behalf of the appellant.

5. Accordingly, present appeal stands dismissed in default.

6. However, in case, any substantive issue still exists along

with cause of action, requiring its adjudication; liberty is granted to the appellant to move an appropriate application for seeking revival of the present appeal, within eight weeks from today.

7. It is clarified that if any such application is filed for seeking revival of the appeal by the appellant, an advance copy of the application would also be delivered to the opposite counsel i.e. respondent(s), and in case, appeal is revived for its disposal on merits, for no reason, except for the exceptional circumstances, hearing of the appeal would be deferred. Therefore, both the sides should remain present and ready for the purpose of addressing the final arguments.

8. Registry is directed to forward copy of the today's order at

the address of the appellant mentioned in the appeal.

(SANJAY VASHISTH) 02.08.2024 JUDGE

Lavisha

Whether speaking/reasoned _ Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No

authenticity of this order/judgment