IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

****

FAO-4-2026 (O&M)

Date of decision: 09.01.2026

G.M. Uttarkhand Transport Corporation

. . . . Appellant

Vs.

Manisha and others

. . . . Respondents

****

CORAM: HON’BLE MR JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA

****

Present: - Mr. Amit Jaiswal, Advocate, for the appellant.

****

DEEPAK GUPTA, J.

CM-31-CII-2026

This is an application for condonation of delay of 5 days in filing

the appeal.

2. For the reasons mentioned in the application, the same is

allowed and the delay of 5 days in filing the appeal is hereby condoned.

FAO-4-2026 (O&M)

3. The owner of one of the offending vehicles, namely the bus involved in a motor vehicular accident, has approached this Court by way of the present appeal challenging the award dated 30.07.2025 passed by the

Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Panipat.

4. A perusal of the record reveals that on 14.06.2019, Sumit along with Vikas (since deceased) and Mahipal were travelling in pick-up vehicle bearing registration No. HR-58A-6552. They had gone to Ladwa, District Kurukshetra, for loading tomatoes and were returning to Sonepat at about 8.30 PM. Vikas was driving the pick-up vehicle. When they were descending from the flyover ahead of the toll plaza at Panipat, bus bearing registration No. UK-07PA-2383 came from the opposite side. The bus crossed over the central divider and collided with the pick-up vehicle, resulting in serious

injuries to the occupants. Vikas succumbed to the injuries sustained in the accident.

5. On the statement of Sumit, an FIR was registered at Police Station Sector 13/17, Panipat. During the course of investigation, it emerged that the bus was stationary on the road and that a canter bearing registration No. HR-69C-8254 had hit the bus from behind, as a consequence of which the bus crossed the divider and struck the pick-up vehicle.

6. The widow, minor children and widowed mother of the deceased-Vikas filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, impleading the drivers, owners and insurers of both the vehicles, i.e. the bus as well as the canter.

7. Upon appreciation of the pleadings and evidence, the learned Tribunal returned a finding that the accident was the result of composite negligence of the drivers of both the offending vehicles. The Tribunal found that although the bus had developed a mechanical fault due to overheating, there was no evidence to show that the driver of the bus had taken any safety precautions while parking the vehicle on the road. No warning signs, reflectors or other preventive measures were proved to have been taken to alert other road users. The negligence of the bus driver was thus clearly established. Simultaneously, the driver of the canter was also found negligent, as he failed to notice the stationary bus and was driving at such a speed that the impact was severe enough to push the bus across the divider and hit into the pick-up vehicle. These findings on negligence have not been shown to be perverse or unsupported by evidence.

8. The learned Tribunal thereafter assessed the compensation payable to the legal representatives of the deceased and awarded a total sum of ₹42,22,000/-. Though both the offending vehicles were insured and their drivers were holding valid driving licences, the Tribunal found that neither vehicle was operating under a valid permit. Consequently, while directing the respective insurance companies to satisfy the award in the ratio of 50:50, liberty was granted to them to recover the amount from the respective owners on the principle of “pay and recover”.

9. Assailing the award, learned counsel for the appellant-owner of the offending bus has raised two submissions. First, it is contended that in view of Section 66(3)(p) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the bus was exempted from holding a permit, as it had developed a mechanical fault. Second, it is argued that the income of the deceased has been assessed on the higher side.

10. This Court finds no merit in either of the submissions.

11