IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Reserve: November 12, 2025 Date of Pronouncement:-19.01.2026 Date of Uploading:-20.01.2026 Future General India Insurance Co. Ltd. ......Appellant(s)

vs.

Urmila and others ......Respondent(s)

Whether only the operative part of the judgment is pronounced? NO Whether full judgment is pronounced? YES CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA Present: Mr. Punit Jain, Advocate, for the appellant.

Mr. Gaurav Gaur, Advocate for respondent Nos. 8 and 9.

****

SUDEEPTI SHARMA J .

1. The present appeal has been preferred by the appellant-Insurance Company against the award dated 26.09.2019 filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Fatehgarh Sahib (for short, 'the Tribunal’) whereby the claimant was granted compensation to the tune of Rs.17,40,000/- and the Insurance Company was held liable to pay the compensation.

FACTS NOT IN DISPUTE

2. Brief facts of the case are that on 3.1.2019, Vinod alongwith Bajrangi, was going on foot on correct left hand side of the road, in the area of P.S.Mandi Gobindgarh. At about 5.30 p.m., when they reached near Bansal Kanda on Ludhiana-Sirhind road, then in the meantime, offending car bearing No.UP-32JD- 0681 came from behind i.e. from Ludhiana side, which was being driven by respondent No.1 Swapnil Yaduvanshi, in a rash and negligent manner. On account of sudden appearance of stray calf in front of the offending car, and in order to save the calf, respondent No.1 applied brakes and turned his car towards left hand side and then he could not control it and struck the offending car against Vinod. Due to said accident, Vinod fell down on the glass of the car and sustained multiple injuries. Injured Vinod was taken to Civil Hospital Mandi Gobindgarh, but he succumbed to his injuries and died on the way to Hospital. The accident in question took place due to rash and negligent driving of offending vehicle by respondent No.1 and regarding the said accident, DDR No.27 dated 4.1.2019, was lodged at Police Station Mandi Gobindgarh, on the statement of Bajrangi, eye witness of the occurrence.

3. Upon notice of the claim petition, respondents appeared and admitted the factum of compensation.

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

“1. Whether Vinod s/o Mata Prasad died on account of injuries received in road accident occurred on 3.1.2019 caused due to rash and negligent driving of Car No.UP-32-JD-0681, by respondent No.1?OPP

2. Whether the claimants are entitled to compensation as prayed for, if so, to what extent and from which of the respondents?

OPP.

3. Whether present claim petition is not maintainable? OPR

4. Whether claimants have no locus standi to file the claim petition? OPR3

5. Whether respondent No.1 was not holding valid and effective driving licence and the offending vehicle does not have valid registration certificate, tax receipts etc., at the time of accident, if so, its effect? OPR3

6. Relief.”

5. After taking into consideration the pleadings and the evidence on record, the learned Tribunal awarded compensation to the claimants. However, the appellant-Insurance Company was held liable to pay the compensation. Hence, the present appeal.

SUBMISSION OF LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES.

6. Learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company contends that in the initial version of claimant as recorded in DDR was that no one was at fault and the accident occurred due to sudden appearance of animal in front of the car. Therefore, the learned Tribunal has wrongly held that the accident in question took place due to rash and negligent driving of respondent No. 8 (driver of the offending vehicle). He further contends that the learned Tribunal has wrongly deducted 1/5th as personal expenses whereas as per settled law, the same ought to be 1/4th. He, therefore prays that the present appeal be allowed.

7. Learned counsel for the respondent No. 8 and 9 vehe