MACT Claim Thrown Out Despite Grievous Injuries: P&H High Court Reopens Scrutiny of Rash Driving Allegations in 2002 Accident Case
Case Name: Gursharan Singh v. Kirpal Singh and Others
Date of Judgment: 17.04.2026
Citation: FAO No. 4444 of 2004
Bench: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Virinder Aggarwal
Held: The High Court examined the correctness of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal’s dismissal of the injured claimant’s petition, focusing on whether the claimant had successfully established rash and negligent driving and consequent entitlement to compensation.
Summary: The appeal arose from the award dated 15.05.2004 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kurukshetra, whereby the claim petition filed by the injured appellant seeking compensation for injuries sustained in a motor vehicular accident was dismissed.
The accident occurred on 06.09.2002 at about 7:00 p.m., when the appellant was walking along the kacha berm on the left side of the road towards his village Jalkheri. A motorcycle bearing registration No. HR-07E-9108, allegedly driven by respondent No.1 in a rash and negligent manner, came from the opposite direction, moved onto the wrong side, and struck the appellant.
The collision resulted in multiple grievous injuries to the appellant, who was admitted to a hospital at Kurukshetra for treatment. It was further alleged that the offending driver fled from the spot after causing the accident. Despite these allegations and the injuries sustained, the Tribunal dismissed the claim petition, prompting the appellant to approach the High Court.
The High Court, in the present appeal, undertook an evaluation of the Tribunal’s findings and the evidence on record to determine whether the dismissal of the claim was legally sustainable, particularly on the aspect of proof of negligence and entitlement to compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act.
Decision: The High Court adjudicated the appeal by reassessing the Tribunal’s reasoning and the evidentiary record relating to the accident, negligence, and injuries. The outcome turned on whether the appellant had discharged the burden of proving rash and negligent driving so as to justify grant of compensation.