Appeal by claimant against MACT order dismissing a motor accident claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act for alleged fabrication of facts regarding how the accident occurred.
The appeal was dismissed finding no merit in the claim of fabricated facts.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
FAO No.955 of 2014
1
219
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
FAO No.955 of 2014 Date of Decision : 12.02.2026
Rahisan
....Appellant
Versus
Mohd. Nisar Khan and another .....Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE PANKAJ JAIN
Present: Mr. Ashish Gupta, Advocate for the appellant.
None for respondent No.1.
Ms. Palak Koundal, Advocate for Mr. Rajbir Singh, Advocate for respondent No.2-Insurance Company.
PANKAJ JAIN, J. (ORAL)
The claimant is in appeal aggrieved of award dated 16.09.2013 passed by MACT, Nuh whereby claim petition filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 by the appellant/claimant stands dismissed.
DEEPAK KUMAR 2026.03.06 16:57 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
FAO No.955 of 2014
2
DEEPAK KUMAR 2026.03.06 16:57 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
FAO No.955 of 2014
3
the veracity of the witness and to extract true version if the version disclosed in the examination -in-chief is considered false by the cross examining counsel and in the present case when during crossexamination claimant admitted that she was pillion rider on the motorcycle of her son certainly no accident had taken place with the involvement of the vehicle belonging to respondent no.1 and if it is presumed that accident took place with the offending vehicle when claimant PW1 was pillion rider in that event certainly in the FIR PW7 son of the claimant was bound to disclose the fact that the accident took place with offending vehicle when claimant was a pillion rider on the motorcycle of PW7. Except the cross examination it is nowhere disclosed that at the time of accident the claimant was a pillion rider and as such when claimant is admitting to be the pillion rider certainly the version disclosed in the FIR is the result of consultation and fabrication.
DEEPAK KUMAR 2026.03.06 16:57 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
4
FAO No.955 of 2014
dismissed.
| February | 12, 2026 | (P | ankaj Jain) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Dpr | Judge | ||
| Whether speaking/reasoned | : Yes/No |
||
| Whether reportable | : Yes/No |
DEEPAK KUMAR 2026.03.06 16:57 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the appellate court should set aside the MACT order dismissing a motor accident claim petition due to fabrication in the version given to police.
Whether the discrepancy between the appellant's claim of being a pillion rider and the prior admission in the FIR warrants dismissal of the claim.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Rahisan
Mohd. Nisar Khan
Insurance Company
Pankaj Jain
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
