IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Reserved on : 30.09.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 12.12.2025 Uploaded on : 13.12.2025 New India Assurance Company Limited ......Appellant Vs.

Mohit Gargi and another ......Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA Present : Mr. Abhimanyu Kalsy, Advocate, for the appellant.

Mr. Amarpreet Singh, Advocate, for the respondents.

****

SUDEEPTI SHARMA J.

1. The appellant-Insurance Company has preferred the present appeal against the award dated 28.02.2017 passed in the claim petition filed under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, ‘MV Act’) by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bathinda (for short, ‘the Tribunal’), whereby the claim petition filed by the respondents/claimants was allowed and the appellant-Insurance company was held liable to pay the compensation to the respondents/claimants to the tune of Rs.5,00,000/-

along with interest @ 9% per annum.

BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE

2. The brief facts of the case, as pleaded in the claim petition, are that on 25.11.2015, the deceased, along with his parents i.e. the respondents/claimants and his brother, was travelling from Sri Ganganagar to Bathinda in Car bearing registration No.PB-03-S-5417. At about 4:30 a.m., when they reached near the bus stand of Balluana, opposite the gate of village Virk Kalan, the said car collided with a roadside tree. At the time of the accident, the vehicle was being driven by Mohit Gargi. As a result, Krish Gargi sustained fatal injuries and died on the spot. A DDR in this regard was registered with the police on the same day, and the matter was duly reported to the appellant/respondent-Insurance Company, who deputed their representatives, including Surveyors and an Investigator. After verifying the accident and examining the relevant documents, the appellant/respondent-Insurance Company sanctioned the own damage claim of the said vehicle.

3. Upon notice of the claim petition, respondent appeared and contested the claim petition by filing its written reply and denied the factum of the accident/compensation.

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

“1. Whether Krish Gargi died due to accident of car bearing RC No. PB-03S-5417? OPP

2. Whether he claimants are entitled to claim any compensation, if so, to what extent and from whom? OPP

3. Whether the insured did not comply with all the terms and conditions of the insurance policy ?OPR

4. Relief ”

5. In support of their pleadings, both the parties led their respective evidence.

6. After taking into consideration the pleadings and the evidence on record, learned Tribunal awarded compensation to the respondents/claimants to the tune of Rs.5,00,000/- along with interest @ 9% per annum and appellant-Insurance Company was held liable to pay the said compensation. Hence, the present appeal.

SUBMISSIONS OF THE LEARNED COUNSELS FOR THE PARTIES 7. Learned counsel for the appellant–Insurance Company contends as under:-

i. that the claim petition was not maintainable since the liability of the appellant-Insurance Company is to the extent of indemnification of the insured against third party and claimant No.2-Anju Gargi is the owner of Car bearing registration No.PB-03-S-5417.

ii. that if the insured be fastened with any liability, the insurer is liable to indemnify the insured for the death of a passenger, if covered by the policy of the insurance, therefore, the Insurance Company is liable to indemnify the insured.

iii. that claimant No.2-Anju Gargi has not been impleaded as respondent, therefore, the appellant-Insurance Company can not be made liable as there is nobody to be indemnified.

iv. that the claim petition was filed under Section 163-A of the MV Act, whereas the compensation has been granted under Section 166 of the MV Act.

In support of his arguments, learned counsel relies upon judgments passed in National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Ashalata Bhowmik and others, 2018 (9) SCC 801 and Oriental In