JUDGMENT :

SUDEEPTI SHARMA, J.

FAO-891-2008 (O&M)

1. The present appeal has been preferred by the appellant- Insurance Company for setting aside the award dated 22.01.2008 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Panipat, (for short, ‘Tribunal’) under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, whereby, the claimants/respondents No.1 to 4 were awarded a compensation of Rs.36,91,665/- along with interest @ 7.5% per annum on account of death of Sanjeev Kumar Chhabra and the appellant-Insurance Company and respondent No.5-owner and driver of the offending vehicle) were held liable to pay the compensation, jointly and severally.

XOBJC-121-2025

2. The present cross-objections have been preferred by cross- objectors/claimants (respondents No.1 to 4 herein) against the award dated 22.01.2008 passed in the claim petition filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 by the learned Tribunal, for enhancement of compensation, granted to the cross-objectors/claimants to the tune of Rs.36,91,665/- along with interest @ 7.5% per annum on account of death of Sanjeev Kumar Chhabra.

3. Since the appeal filed by the Insurance Company and the cross- objections filed by the claimants/cross-objectors are arising out of the same award dated 22.01.2008 passed by the learned Tribunal, therefore, FAO- 891-2008 and XOBJC-121-2025 are decided vide this common judgment.

FACTS NOT IN DISPUTE

4. Brief facts of the case are that on 21.01.2006, deceased Sanjeev Kumar Chhabra, along with Jitender Kumar, started from Panipat for Katra (Jammu) to pay obeisance at the holy shrine of Mata Shri Vaishno Devi, in car bearing registration No.HR-06M-6288 8. On the way, Ashok Kumar and Surender Kumar, relatives of the deceased, boarded the car from Rajpura to join the pilgrimage. The deceased was driving the car at a moderate speed while observing traffic rules. At about 12:30 a.m., when they reached near the tax barrier of Mansa within the jurisdiction of Police Station Mukerian, Punjab, a loaded truck bearing registration No.PB-07G-8271 was proceeding ahead of their car. The said truck was being driven by Dilbag Singh, respondent No.1. Respondent No.1 is the owner-cum-driver of the offending truck, whereas respondent No.2 is the insurer of the said vehicle.

5. Upon notice of the claim petition, the respondents appeared and filed their separate replies denying the factum of accident/compensation.

6. From the pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal framed the following issues:-

“1. Whether the accident in question took place due to rash and negligent driving of vehicle No. PB-07G-8271 by respondent No.1? OPP

2. If Issue No.l is proved, to what amount of compensation, the, claimants are entitled to receive and from whom? OP Parties.

3. Whether the respondent No.2 is not liable to pay the compensation in view of the preliminary objections taken by it in its written statement? OPR

4. Relief.”

7. After taking into consideration the pleadings and the evidence on record, the learned Tribunal has awarded compensation to the tune of Rs.36,91,665/- along with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum on account of death of Sanjeev Kumar Chhabra and the appellant-Insurance Company as well as respondent No.5 (owner and driver of the offending vehicle) were held liable to pay the compensation jointly and severally. Hence, the Insurance Company filed the present appeal.

SUBMISSIONS OF LEARNED COUNSELS FOR THE PARTIES

8. Learned counsel for the appellant–Insurance Company contends that the learned Tribunal erred in not considering contributory negligence on the part of the deceased, driver of car bearing registration No. HR-06M-6288. He further contends that the offending vehicle, moving truck, was struck from behind by the said car, which prima facie indicates lack of due care and caution on the part of the deceased while driving. In such circumstances, it is further contended that the deceased failed to maintain a safe distance and exercise reasonable prudence expected of a pru