Dismissed¶28

Rajpal Sharma v. Sanjeev Kumar and Others

Punjab & Haryana HC23 Apr 2026FAO/802/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Motor accident compensation appeal dismissed; award of MACT Karnal dated 07.10.2021 upheld; unexplained 10-day delay in FIR No.1055 dated 28.08.2018 under Sections 279, 337 and 338 IPC, Police Station City, Karnal; no hospitalisation or treatment records for 19.08.2018 to 28.08.2018; Medico-Legal Report Ex.P-13 showed claimant conscious, oriented, normal vitals; left-leg fracture operated about 11 months after accident without proven nexus; appellant not represented since inception; FAO, Punjab and Haryana High Court, decided 23.04.2026.

What did the court decide?

The findings recorded by the learned Tribunal dismissing the claim petition are based on proper appreciation of evidence and suffer from no illegality or perversity warranting interference by this Court. ¶22

Rajpal Sharma Vs Sanjeev Kumar and Others — Punjab & Haryana HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

¶1

FAO-802-2022 (O & M) 1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶3

232

¶4

FAO No.802 o f 2022 (O & M) Date of decision :-23.04.2026

Rajpal Sharma

…..Appellant

Versus

Sanjeev Kumar and others

¶9

…..Respondents

¶10

CORAM:- HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA

¶11

Present:None for the appellant.

¶12

NIDHI GUPTA J. (Oral)

¶13

The present appeal has been preferred by the injured/c l aimant–appellant assailing th e Award dated 07.10.2021 passed b y the learned Motor Accide n t Claims Tribunal, Karnal, whereby t he claim petition filed by the a p pellant has been dismissed.

¶14

At the outset, it is pertinent t o note that the present appeal pertains t o the year 2022. None has put i n appearance on behalf of the appellant since its inception. Even today, there is no representation on his behal f . This Court, therefore, proceeds to examine the matter on the basis o f the material available on rec o rd.

¶15

A perusal of the impugned A ward reveals that the claim petition w as filed by the appellant seeki n g compensation on account of injuri e s allegedly sustained by him i n a motor vehicular accident dated 19. 0 8.2018 at about 5:00 PM.

¶16

VIJAY ASIJA 2026.04.24 16.38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶17

¶18

FAO-802-2022 (O & M)

¶19

The learned Tribunal, upon a ppreciation of the evidence, has dism i ssed the claim petition primar i ly on the ground that there was an u nexplained delay of 10 days in lodging the FIR bearing No.1055 dated 28.08.2018 under Sectio n s 279, 337 and 338 IPC at Police St a tion City, Karnal. No plausib l e or convincing explanation has been furnished by the appellant t o justify such delay, which assumes s ignificance in the facts and circ u mstances of the case.

¶20

Further, the Tribunal has rig h tly observed that there is no material on record to demonstrate t h at the appellant remained admitted in any hospital or was unde r going treatment during the period f r om 19.08.2018 to 28.08.201 8 . The plea taken by the appellant that he remained unconscious for about 10 days after the accident stands belied from the Medico-Legal Report (Ex.P-13), which cl e arly records that the appellant was conscious, oriented and his vital p arameters were normal at the ti m e of examination.

¶21

It has also come on record t h at the alleged fracture of the left leg w as operated upon after a con s iderable delay of about 11 months fr om the date of the accident, a nd no cogent evidence has been pro d uced to establish any nexus be t ween the said injury and the alleged a c cident.

¶22

In view of the aforesaid circumstances, the findings recorded by the learned Tribunal are based on proper appreciation of evidence and do not suffer from any illeg a lity or perversity warranting interfere n ce by this Court.

¶23

VIJAY ASIJA 2026.04.24 16.38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶24

¶25

FAO-802-2022 (O & M)

¶26

Moreover, the continued a bsence of the appellant in pursuing the present appeal further r eflects lack of interest in prosecuti n g the matter.

¶27

Consequently, finding no m e rit in the present appeal, the

¶28

same is h e reby dismissed .

¶29