IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Reserved on : 05.12.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 29.01.2026 Date of Uploading : 31.01.2026 Oriental Insurance Company Limited ......Appellant Vs.

Seema and others ......Respondents 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. Harsh Aggarwal, Advocate, for the appellant-Insurance Company.

None for the respondents.

****

SUDEEPTI SHARMA J .

1. The present appeal has been preferred against the award dated 06.11.2024 passed in the claim petition filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sonipat (for short, ‘the Tribunal’), whereby the appellant-Insurance company was held liable to pay the compensation to the claimants/respondents to the tune of Rs.20,32,000/- along with interest @ 7.5% per annum on account of death of Satyadev.

BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE

2. The brief facts of the case are that on 26.11.2022, Satyadev (since deceased) was going on his bicycle from his village Fazilpur, District Sonipat, to attend his duty at Den Block Private Limited Company, Sonipat. When he reached near FIMS Hospital, Sonipat, a bus bearing registration No.HR-69D-2499, being driven by respondent No.1 at a high speed, in a rash and negligent manner and in violation of traffic rules and regulations, came from behind and hit Satyadev. As a result of the said impact, the deceased fell on the road, sustained multiple serious and grievous injuries all over his body and his head struck against the road. He was immediately shifted to FIMS Hospital, Sonipat, where he was declared brought dead. In this regard, FIR No.537 dated 26.11.2022 under Sections 279 and 304-A IPC was registered at Police Station Sector-27, Sonipat, on the statement of Anurag, son of the deceased.

3. Upon notice of the claim petition, respondents appeared and contested the claim petition by filing their separate written replies and denied the factum of the accident/compensation.

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

“1. Whether the accident in question had taken place on 26.11.2022 near FIMS Hospital, Sonipat on account of rash and negligent driving by respondent No. 1, while driving offending Bus bearing registration No. HR-69D2499 resulting in death of Satyadev son of Shri Fagu, as alleged ?

OPP

2. If issue No. 1 is proved in affirmative, whether claimants are entitled to compensation. If so, how much and from whom ? OPP

3. Whether the claim petition is not maintainable in the present form ? OPR.

4. Whether the insured has violated the terms and conditions of insurance policy ? OPR-3

5. Relief. ”

5. In support of their pleadings, both the parties led their respective evidence.

6. After taking into consideration the pleadings and the evidence on record, the learned Tribunal awarded compensation to the claimants/respondents to the tune of Rs.20,32,000/- along with interest @ 7.5% per annum on account of death of Satyadev and appellant-Insurance Company was held liable to pay compensation. Hence, the present appeal.

SUBMISSIONS OF THE LEARNED COUNSELS FOR THE APPELLANT- INSURANCE COMPANY

7. Learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company contends that the learned Tribunal has erred in holding that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of offending vehicle. He further contends that no eye-witness qua the accident was examined before the learned Tribunal. Therefore, he prays that the present appeal be allowed and award be modified/reduced.

8. There is no representation on behalf of the respondents/claimants.

9. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance and carefully perused the whole record of this Court with his able assistance.

10. Before proceeding further, it is relevant to reproduce the relevant portion of the award dated 06.11.2024 passed by the learned Tribunal:-

“ ISSUE NO.1 :

9. To prove tha