IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 28.11.2025 Jag Roshni and others ....Appellants V/s Imran and others .…Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKRAM AGGARWAL Present: Mr. Susheel Gautam, Advocate, for the appellants.

Mr. Vinod Gupta, Advocate, for respondent No.3-Insurance Company.

***

VIKRAM AGGARWAL, J. (ORAL)

CM-16957-CII-2023 Prayer in the present application preferred under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 is for condonation of delay of 185 days in filing the appeal.

Notice of the application.

Mr. Vinod Gupta, Advocate accepts notice on behalf of respondent No.3-insurance company.

Learned counsel for respondent No.3 submits that he would have no objection if the present application is allowed.

In view of the submissions set out in the application which is duly supported by an affidavit, as also keeping in view the no objection given by learned counsel for respondent No.3, the present application is allowed and the delay of 185 days in filing the appeal is condoned.

FAO-4975-2023 Claimants have preferred the instant appeal seeking enhancement in compensation granted to them vide award dated 01.11.2022 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sonepat (for short ‘MACT’).

2. The facts, as emanating from the paper book, are that appellants/claimants, who are the wife and children of the deceased-Naresh Chand, filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short ‘MV Act’) claiming compensation on account of death of Naresh Chand in a motor vehicular accident which took place on

08.12.2020.

3. It was averred that Naresh Chand was a Taxi/Cab driver and was engaged with OLA Cabs. On 08.12.2020, Naresh Chand after boarding two passengers through OLA Cabs company in his Taxi bearing Regn. No.UP14-HT-1150, proceeded towards Panipat. When he reached at Jakhauli Toll Plaza and was waiting for his turn at the toll plaza, a Truck bearing Regn. No.RJ14-GK-6464 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘offending vehicle”), being driven by respondent No.1 (Imran) came from behind at a very high speed in a rash and negligent manner and hit the car of Naresh Chand including car bearing Regn. No.HR51-BC-1733, which was ahead of his car. As a result of the same, Naresh Chand and other occupants of his taxi sustained multiple grievous injuries. Passengers of the other car also sustained serious injuries. Naresh Chand was taken to General Hospital, Sonepat, where he was declared dead (hereinafter referred to as “the deceased”). One of the co-passengers also expired. On the complaint of one Dishant Bansal, FIR No.413, dated 08.12.2020 was registered at Police Station Rai, Sonepat under Sections 279/337/304A IPC. It was averred that Naresh Chand was earning Rs.75,000/- per month. As such, compensation of Rs.2 crores was claimed by the claimants.

4. On notice, respondents No.1 to 2 appeared and filed their joint written statement. They denied all the averments made in the petition including the factum of the accident.

5. The claim petition was opposed by respondent No.3-insurance company. In the written statement, it took usual defences and denied the factum of the accident.

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

“1. Whether the accident in question took place on 08.12.2020 on account of rash and negligent driving by respondent No.1, while driving the offending vehicle i.e. Truck bearing Regn. No.RJ14-GK-6464 resulting in the death of Naresh Chand son of Charan Singh, as alleged?OPP

2. Whether petitioners are entitled to get compensation. If so, how much and from whom?OPP

3. Whether the insured has violated the terms and conditions of insurance policy?OPR3

4. Relief.”

7. Parties led their respective evidence.

8. The MACT held that the accident had taken place on account of the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by respondent No.1. As regards the quantum of compensation, the age of the deceased was assessed as 48 years and his monthly income was assessed