SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(P&H) 802

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
(O&M) SARWAN SINGH – Appellant
Versus
THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LTD. AND OTHERS – Respondent



##PAGE1##

FAO-2092-1996 &

FAO-2206-1996 [1]

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

FAO-2092-1996 &

FAO-2206-1996

i) FAO-2092-1996

Sarwan Singh ...Appellant

Versus

The New India Assurance Company Ltd. and others ...Respondent

ii) FAO-2206-1996

Naib Kaur and others ...Appellants

Versus

Gianinder Kumar Jain and others ...Respondent

*****

Reserved on: 27.01.2026

Pronounced on: 29.01.2026

Pronounced fully/opera4ve part: Fully

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA

Argued by: Mr. Ni.sh Kaushal, Advocate for the appellant(s).

Mr. Navin Kapur, Advocate

for respondents No.1 and 4 (in FAO-2092-1996)

for respondent No.3 (in FAO-2206-1996)

Mr. Deepak Girotra, Advocate

for respondents No.2 and 3 (in FAO-2092-1996)

for respondents No.1 and 2 (in FAO-2202-1996)

****

DEEPAK GUPTA, J. (ORAL)

These two appeals have been filed by the claimants against the

common award dated 03.04.1995 passed by the Motor Accident Claims

Tribunal, whereby both claim pe..ons filed under Sec.on 166 of the Motor

Vehicles Act were dismissed.

2. The accident in ques.on occurred on 28.05.1991 within the

1 of 5

::: Downloaded on - 31-01-2026 09:43:33 :::

##PAGE2##

FAO-2092-1996 &

FAO-2206-1996 [2]

revenue limits of village Shambhu Khurd on the Ambala–Rajpura road. In

the said accident, Gurmail Singh sustained injuries, and tractor No. PB-11-B-

5431 was damaged.

3. Gurmail Singh filed a claim pe..on seeking compensa.on for

the injuries suffered by him, whereas his father Sarwan Singh filed a

separate claim pe..on seeking compensa.on for damage caused to the

tractor. In both the pe..ons, the driver, owner and insurer of the alleged

offending vehicle, i.e. tanker truck No. UP-20-5990, were impleaded as

respondents. In the claim pe..on filed by Sarwan Singh, the insurer of the

tractor was also impleaded.

4. In the claim pe..on filed by Gurmail Singh, it was pleaded that

on 28.05.1991 at about 4.00 p.m., he was traveling from Ambala towards

Rajpura while driving tractor No. PB-11-B-5431. On reaching near village

Shambhu, the tanker truck bearing registra.on No. UP-20-5990, driven by

respondent No.2 in a rash and negligent manner by coming on the wrong

side of the road, struck against the tractor-trolley, resul.ng in Gurmail

Singh sustaining mul.ple injuries, including a fracture above the knee of his

leD leg. Damage to the tractor was also alleged, and compensa.on to the

tune of ₹2,00,000/- was claimed.

5. The said claim was contested by the driver and owner of the

tanker truck by pleading that the accident had occurred due to the

negligence of Gurmail Singh himself, who, while aGemp.ng to save a

cyclist, lost control of the tractor and rammed it into the sta.onary tanker

truck, which was parked on the kacha por.on of the road. The Insurance

Company also adopted the same defence and further pleaded that the

driver of the tractor was not holding a valid driving licence.

6. In the separate claim pe..on filed by Sarwan Singh, it was

2 of 5

::: Downloaded on - 31-01-2026 09:43:34 :::

##PAGE3##

FAO-2092-1996 &

FAO-2206-1996 [3]

pleaded that he was the owner of the tractor and trolley, which were

insured, and that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of

the tanker truck. Significantly, in this pe..on, Sarwan Singh did not plead as

to who was driving the tractor at the .me of the accident.

7. Though separate issues were ini.ally framed in the two claim

pe..ons, the maGers were later consolidated and tried together. Upon

apprecia.on of the evidence led by the par.es, the Tribunal dismissed both

claim pe..ons by a common award.

8. The principal conten.on raised by learned counsel for the

appellants is that the evidence on record has not been properly appreciated

and that the Tribunal has erred in dismissing the claim pe..ons.

9. Having carefully examined the record and the reasoning

adopted by the Tribunal, this Court does not find any merit in the appeals.

10. The Tribunal no.ced a fundamental and fatal inconsistency in

the case of the claimants regarding the most crucial aspect, namely, who

was driving the tractor at the .me

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top