Civil Revision No. 4141 of 2007 -1- **** IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 4141 of 2007 Date of decision : 15.1.2010 Sudhir Kumar ....Petitioner Versus Smt. Nirmala Devi & others ...Respondents **** CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. D. ANAND Present: Mr. Amit Jain, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. G.D.Gupta, Advocate for respondent no.5. S. D. ANAND, J. The petitioner filed a petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act (hereinafter after referred to as “the Act”) to claim compensation in respect of injury sustained by him in the course of the impugned motor vehicular accident. At the trial, the maintainability of the petition under Section 166 of the Act was challenged on an averment that there were no allegations whatsoever in the course of the petition to the effect that accident had been caused on account of the rashness and negligent driving on the part of the driver of allegedly offending vehicle. The Tribunal held that the petition under Section 166 of the Act was not maintainable in the absence of allegations pertaining to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle. Civil Revision No. 4141 of 2007 -2- **** Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, argued that there is nothing in the course of the provisions of Section 166 of the Act which would compel a claimant to make an allegation that the offending vehicle was driven rashly and negligently. The plea raised is apparently unsustainable. When a claimant raises a claim against another, the only way he can substantiate it by averring that the latter was accountable for causing the impugned accident on account of rash and negligent driving of allegedly offending vehicle. There is no other way a claim for compensation under the Act could be raised without making allegations of rashness and negligence. Attention of this Court had not been invited to any provision or judicial pronouncement which could be said to be supportive of the plea that a petition under Section 166 of the Act would be maintainable without the petitioner making/averring allegations against the driver of offending vehicle. The petition is held to be denuded of merit and is ordered to be dismissed. January 15,2010 (S. D. ANAND) Pka JUDGE