IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

234 Date of decision: 20.01.2026 FAO-3752-2018(O&M)

Rajeev Gupta ...Appellant(s)

Vs.

Kuldeep & Others ...Respondent(s)

***

FAO-7200-2018(O&M)

Kuldeep ...Appellant(s)

Vs.

Anil Kumar & Others ...Respondent(s)

***

CORAM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA Present:- Mr. Piyush Aggarwal, Advocate for the appellant/owner (in FAO-3752-2018).

Mr. Manoj Kumar Taya, Advocate for the appellant/claimant (in FAO-7200-2018).

Mr. Sandeep Suri, Advocate for respondent No.2/Insurance Company.

***

NIDHI GUPTA, J. FAO-3752-2018 Present appeal has been filed by the owner of the TATA-909 bearing registration No.HR-55-Q-5718 (hereinafter referred to as “the offending vehicle”) against the Award dated 26.02.2018 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Karnal (hereinafter ‘the learned Tribunal’) whereby Claim Petition No.178 dated 09.07.2014 filed under Sections 166 and 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, by the claimant/respondent No.1 herein has been allowed and the claimant has been awarded compensation of Rs.19,82,602/- along with interest @ 6% per annum.

FAO-7200-2018 Present appeal has been filed by the injured-claimant seeking enhancement of compensation of Rs.19,82,602/- awarded by the learned Tribunal vide Award dated 26.02.2018 passed in Claim Petition No.178 dated 09.07.2014 filed under Sections 166 and 140 of the Act. Both the present appeals are being disposed of by this common order as both emanate from common Award dated 26.02.2018; passed in same Claim Petition; and in respect of the accident dated 19.11.2013; between same parties; and facts and issues involved in both the cases are identical. For the sake of brevity, facts are being drawn from, and parties are being referred to as per their status in FAO-3752-2018.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the learned Tribunal on the basis of pleadings and oral & documentary evidence adduced by the parties concluded that the claimant had suffered injuries in a motor vehicular accident that took place on 19.11.2013 due to the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle being driven by respondent No.3, owned by the appellant, and insured by respondent No.2. Vide the impugned Award, liability to pay the compensation amount has been fixed upon the appellant and the respondent no.3 on the ground that the Driver of the offending vehicle/respondent no.3 herein, did not possess a valid Driving Licence at the time of accident. Accordingly, Recovery rights were granted to the Insurance Company against the owner/appellant, and respondent no.3. The said compensation has been awarded along with interest @ 6% per annum.

LIABILITY TO PAY COMPENSATION:

3. Learned counsel for the appellant/owner of the offending vehicle submits that the learned Tribunal is in error in holding the appellant liable to pay the compensation as, the appellant had clearly stated that at the time of employing the driver, the owner-appellant had taken his Driving Test. It is submitted that the owner had also checked the Driving Licence held by the driver and it was found that he was holding a valid Driving Licence. The owner had employed the driver in the year 2011. The Driving Licence had been issued in the year 2010. The accident had taken place three years thereafter on 19.11.2013. As such, there was nothing more that the owner-appellant could have done to verify that the driver was competent to drive the offending vehicle. It is submitted that as appellant had taken all steps required as per law and by way of abundant caution, liability to pay compensation could not have been affixed upon him.

4. Per contra, learned counsel for the Insurance Company vehemently opposes the submissions advanced on behalf of the owner and submits that the owner in his written statement has nowhere pleaded that he had taken the driving test of the driver. It is submitted that therefore, learned counsel for the owner is arguing beyond the pleadings. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company further draws the at