IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Reserved on : 30.01.2026 Date of Pronouncement : 31.01.2026 Date of Uploading : 04.02.2026 National Insurance Company Limited ......Appellant Vs.

Daya Chand 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. R.C.Kapoor, Advocate, for the appellant.

Mr. Mohan Singh Rana, Advocate, for respondents No.1 to 3.

Ms. Shweta Bawa, Advocate, and Mr. Naveen, Advocate, for respondent No.4.

****

S UDEEPTI SHARMA J .

1. The present appeal has been preferred against the award dated 07.07.2017 passed in the claim petition filed under Sections 166/140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Palwal (for short, ‘the Tribunal’), whereby the appellant-Insurance company was held liable to pay the compensation to the claimants/respondents No.1 and 2 to the tune of Rs.8,20,000/- along with interest @ 7.5% per annum on account of death of Inderjeet.

BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE

2. Brief facts of the case are that on 01.01.2014, Jasbir (since deceased), along with Inderjeet (since deceased), was returning from school after attending the annual function on a motorcycle bearing registration No. HR-50C-3980. On the way, upon meeting Satbir and Mehar Chand at Ghasera turn, the motorcycle was stopped. Mehar Chand also took a lift on the said motorcycle, whereas Satbir proceeded on another motorcycle. When they reached near the water hut, a tractor bearing registration No. HR- 38S-5957, attached with a trolley and driven by respondent No.1 in a rash and negligent manner, came from the side of Hassanpur and while crossing, struck against the motorcycle of deceased Jasbir. As a result of the impact, all three occupants fell onto the kachha road. Respondent No.1 abandoned the tractor-trolley at the spot and fled away. Jasbir succumbed to the injuries at the spot, whereas Mehar Chand and Inderjeet were taken to General Hospital, Palwal. Considering their serious condition, they were referred to Safdarjung Hospital, Delhi. However, Inderjeet succumbed to his injuries on 02.01.2014. The matter was reported to the police and in this regard, FIR No.4 dated 02.01.2014, under Sections 279, 337 and 304-A the Indian Penal Code, 1860 was registered against respondent No.1 at Police Station Hassanpur.

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 resulting into the death of Jasbir son of Hari Singh and Inderjeet and causing injuries to the petitioner Mahesh took place due to alleged rash and negligent driving of Tractor bearing registration no.HR 38S 5957 by the respondent no.1? OPP

2. If issue no.1 is proved, whether petitioners are entitled to any compensation, if so how much and from whom? OPP

3. Whether respondent no.1 was not holding a valid and effective driving licence to drive the offending vehicle on the date of accident? OPR3

4. Whether the respondent no.2 has violated the terms and conditions of policy exonerating the liability of the insurance company? OPR3.

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.8,20,000/- along with interest @ 7.5% per annum on account of death of Inderjit and appellant-Insurance Company was held liable to pay compensation. Hence, the present appeal.

SUBMISSIONS OF THE LEARNED COUNSELS FOR THE PARTIES 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 ne