32 Il Civil Revision No 5239 of 2008 4m k k 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No 5239 of 2008 Dateofdecision 1 152010 Hari Singh e Im2 C 0etitioner 0 Versus C3 Smtllirmala Devi S others spondents C5 kRkR I CORAM 1 HONBLE MR JUSTICE S ANAND Z Presentl Mr ADAchint Advocate for the petitioner 0 2 Mr GllGupta Advocate for respondenti5 I 08 D ANAND J The petitionerherein filed a claim for compensation for a the injuriessustained in the course of the impugnedmotor vehicular ll accident The petitionhad been filed Ill terms of Section 166 of tlle Motor Vehicles Act lereinafter after referredtoastheActInthe course of the trial a pleawas raised for the Ieave of the Court to amend the petitionand to raise a pleathat the impugnedaccident had occurred on account of rashness and negligencedrivingof the vehicle The plea did not find favour with the Iearned Tribunal which held that the proposedpleacould not be aliowed to be taken in view of the fact that no such allegationhad been made informantin the relevant FlR and also in the petition In that view the Iearned Trial Court took notice of the 1 JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 33 4 Civil Revision No 5239 of 2008 e2 RkIck 3 contentsof the DDR wherein there was a averment that the accident had takenplaceby chance and that none was accountabie for it Learned counsel appearingon behalf of the J 1 arguedthat the Tribunal erred in Iaw by decliningthe proposed l amendmentt was arguedthat the proposedamendment should 0 C havebeen allowed and the truthfulnessor otherwise of the proposed I C5 pleashould been Ieftfor considerationbythe Tribunal I There is no force in the plea raised on behalf of the Z petitioner r The presentis a pureand simplecase wherein the claim I petitiollas presentdoes not appear to have been maintainablein 08 View of the fact that no allegationsof rashness and negligence came to be made againstthe driver of offendingvehicle In a separate 17 Z Civil Revision No1141 of 2007 Sudhir Kumar Vs Smt tl Nirmala Devi and othersldecided today it has been held that a filed under Section 166 of the Act was not maintainable in the absence of an allegationof the impugnedaccident having occurredon account of the rash and negligentdrivingbythe driver of the offendingvehicle In the Iightof the foregoingdiscussion it is evident that the view obtainedbythe Iearned Tribunal was in order and does not callforinterference The shall stand distrissed accordingly 1 a 02 January152010 S D ANANDI 2J111 Pka JUDGE 40 JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document