IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD.

..Appellant Versus DHARAMBIR SHARMA AND ORS.

..Respondents Reserved on: 19.12.2025 Date of decision: 31.01.2026 Uploaded on : 04.02.2026 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. V. Ramswaroop, Advocate for the appellant.

S UDEEPTI SHARMA , J .

1. The present appeal has been filed by the appellant-Insurance company against the award dated 24.07.2008 passed in a claim petition filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jhajjar (for short, 'the Tribunal'), wherein the claim petition filed by the claimants was allowed and appellant-Insurance company was made liable to pay at first instance.

BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE

2. Brief facts of the case are that on 30.4.2006, the petitioners were going from Bahadurgarh to village Chappar to do some religious purposes in a Maruti Zen Car bearing registration No.DL-1CE-2040. When, they reached near a petrol pump near village Subana on Jhajjar-Kosli road, a truck bearing registration No.HR-55A-9361 (hereinafter referred to as offending vehicle) came from the opposite side, which was being driven by Rajesh Kumar, respondent No.1 in a very rash and negligent manner and with high speed. Consequently, it hit into the car, in which, petitioners were travelling. The occupant of the car got multiple injuries. They were brought to Civil Hospital, Jhajjar and from there, they were referred to PGIMS, Rohtak and from Rohtak, they were taken to Sri Balaji Action Medical Institute, Paschim Vihar, New Delhi. As per petitioners, the accident in question took place because of such rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle, by its driver. In this accident, petitioners namely Smt. Rajbala wife of Ramesh Kumar and Ms. Suman Sharma daughter of Dharambir Sharma sustained injuries on their persons whereas Smt. Bimla Sharma wife of Dharambir Sharma and Vijay Kumar @ Vijay Sharma son of Dharambir Sharma died.

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

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

“1. Whether Smt. Rajbala and Ms. Suman Sharma had sustained injuries whereas Smt. Bimla wife of Dharambir and Vijay Kumar @ Vijay Sharma son of Dharambir Sharma had died in a road side accident took place on 30.04.2006, within the jurisdiction of Police Station, Salhawas due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle i.e. the truck bearing registration No.HR- 55A-9361, being driven by its driver Rajesh Kumar, respondent No.1? OPP

2. If so, petitioners Smt. Rajbala and Miss Suman Sharma and the legal heirs of deceased Smt. Bimla wife of Dharambir and Vijay Kumar @ Vijay Sharma son of Dharambir Sharma are entitled for compensation? If so, to amount and from whom?

OPP

3. Whether respondent No.1 was not holding a valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident. If so, to effect?

OPR-3

4. Relief”

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

6. After taking into consideration the pleadings and the evidence on record, the learned Tribunal awarded compensation to the claimants.

Hence, the present appeal.

SUBMISSIONS OF LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLANT:

7. Learned counsel for the appellant–Insurance Company contends that the learned Tribunal has erred in holding that accident occurred due to sole negligence of the driver of offending vehicle. He furthermore, contends that infact the accident was a result of contributory negligence of both the drivers. Therefore, he prays that the present appeal be allowed.

8. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the whole case file with his able assistance.

9. The relevant portion of the award is rep