IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 29.01.2026 Mandeep Kumar ....Appellant V/s Vijay Kumar and others .…Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKRAM AGGARWAL Present: Mr. J.P. Sharma, Advocate, for the appellant.

Mr. Harinder Kumar, Advocate, for respondent No.3.

***

VIKRAM AGGARWAL, J. (ORAL)

The instant appeal has been preferred by the appellant-claimant (Mandeep Kumar) seeking enhancement of compensation awarded vide Award dated 20.03.2024 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Narnaul (for short ‘MACT’).

2. The facts, as emanating from the paper book, are that the appellant instituted a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short ‘MV Act’) seeking compensation of Rs.90 lakhs on account of injuries suffered by the appellant in a motor vehicular accident which took place on 18.07.2018.

3. The case of the appellant was that on 18.07.2018, he along with Samar Singh son of Babu Lal was going from village Mirzapur to Kanina on a motorcycle. The motorcycle was being driven by Samar Singh at a moderate speed in a cautious manner while the appellant was riding pillion. When they reached Village Sunderah near the Petrol Pump, a truck bearing Regn. No.HR-55-T-6155 (hereinafter referred to as “the offending vehicle”) came at a high speed, in a rash and negligent manner and hit the motorcycle, as a result of which, the appellant fell down on the road and sustained multiple and grievous injuries on his person, whereas Samar Singh fell on the non-metalled berm of the road. The offending vehicle was being driven by respondent No.1 (Vijay Kumar), who fled from the spot leaving the offending vehicle behind. The accident was witnessed by Samar Singh and other villagers. The appellant was first taken to Government Hospital, Narnaul by the villagers, from where, he was referred to another hospital for further treatment. The appellant was then taken to Kailash Hospital, Behror and after one day, he was shifted to Fortis Hospital, Gurugram, where he remained admitted for several months.

4. FIR No.268, dated 24.07.2018 under Setions 279 and 337 IPC was registered at Police Station Kanina.

5. It was averred that the accident had taken place on account of the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by respondent No.1. It was averred that at the time of the accident, the appellant was 18 years old and was engaged in imparting tuitions besides assisting his parents in agricultural and domestic work and was earning Rs.20,000/- per month. It was averred that in future, his income was likely to increase but on account of the injuries suffered in the accident, he became permanently disabled and his future earnings were severely impacted.

6. Respondent No.1 (driver of the offending vehicle) filed his separate written statement and denied the factum of the accident. It was averred that a false FIR was got registered by the appellant in collusion with the police.

7. Respondent No.2 (owner of the offending vehicle) did not appear despite service and was proceeded against ex parte.

8. Respondent No.3 (United India Insurance Company Ltd.) filed its separate written statement and took its usual defences. The factum of the accident was denied. It was averred that the registration number of the motorcycle was concealed.

9. From the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed:

“1. Whether claimant Mandeep Kumar, son of Rajesh Kumar, sustained injuries in a road accident, which took place on 18.07.2018 in the area of village Sunderah near Petrol Pump. P.S. Kanina due to rash and negligent driving of vehicle No.HR-55-T-6165 by respondent No.1?OPP

2. If issue No.1 is proved in favour of claimants, whether claimant is entitled for compensation, if so, how much and from whom?

3. Whether driver of the offending vehicle was not holding a valid driving licence at the time of accident, if so, its effect? OPR

4. Relief.”

10. Parties led their respective evidence.

11. On issue No.1, it was hel