IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Reserve: November 17, 2025 Date of Pronouncement:-29.01.2026 Date of Uploading:-04.02.2026 National Insurance Co. Ltd. ......Appellant(s)

vs.

Anand Kumar and others ......Respondent(s)

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. Tushar Gera, Advocate for respondent No. 3.

****

SUDEEPTI SHARMA J .

1. The present appeal has been preferred by the appellant-Insurance Company against the award dated 01.09.2018 filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bhiwani (for short, 'the Tribunal’) on the ground that the liability to pay compensation to the tune of Rs. 1,77,000/- has been wrongly fixed upon the Insurance Company.

FACTS NOT IN DISPUTE

2. Brief facts of the case are that on 16.1.2015 at about 7:00P.M., claimant after taking dinner was going to Bhiwani from his village Bapora on his three wheeler bearing registration No. HR-61B/9455 which was being driven by him in a moderate speed and when he reached near Garg Oil Mill, in the meantime a truck bearing registration No. HR-11/2615 which was being driven by respondent No.1 in a rash and negligent manner and at a very speed came from opposite side and struck with the three wheeler from the front side, due to which, claimant fell down on the road and received grievous injuries including fracture in the right hand and right waist and his three wheeler was also damaged in the accident in question. After causing the accident, driver of the truck fled away from the spot along with his truck. The claimant was shifted to General Hospital, Bhiwani but due to serious injuries, he was referred to PGIMS Rohtak for better treatment. On the statement of eye witness Vijay Kumar, FIR No. 38 dated 17.1.2015, under sections 279/337 IPC was lodged at Police Station Sadar Bhiwani against respondent No.1.

3. Upon notice of the claim petition, respondents appeared and admitted the factum of compensation.

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

“1. -Whether the accident in question took place on 16.1.2015 due to rash and negligent driving of vehicle bearing registration No. HR-11/2615 by respondent No.1 and caused injuries to petitioner and damaged three wheeler bearing registration No.

HR-618/9455 owned by petitioner? OPP

2 If issue No. 1 is proved, whether petitioner is entitled to claim compensation if so to what amount and from whom? OPP

3 Whether the petitions are not maintainable in the present form? OPR

4. Whether the petitioner has no locus standi to file the present petition? OPR

5 Whether respondent No. 1 is not having any valid and effective driving licence and insured has violated the terms and conditions of the insurance policy, if so its effect? OPR”

5. After taking into consideration the pleadings and the evidence on record, the learned Tribunal awarded compensation to the claimants. However, the appellant-Insurance Company was held liable to pay the compensation. Hence, the present appeal.

SUBMISSION OF LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES.

6. Learned counsel for the appellant–Insurance Company contends that the learned Tribunal has committed an error in fastening liability upon the Insurance Company to pay compensation. He further contends that the appellant- Insurance Company successfully discharged its statutory burden by leading cogent evidence to establish breach of policy conditions. In this regard, RW-2 Karambir, Clerk from the office of RTA, Karnal, was examined, who categorically deposed that the driving licence bearing No. Ex. R-1 was never issued by RTA Karnal and was, in fact, a forged and fabricated document.

7. In view of the said uncontroverted testimony, he further submits that the driver of the offending vehicle was not holding a valid and effective driving