##PAGE1##

FAO-2156-2000 (O&M) -1-(cid:1) (cid:1)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH

216 FAO-2156-2000 (O&M)

Reserved on: 28.01.2026

Pronounced on:05.02.2026

Uploaded on:05.02.2026

(cid:1)

National Insurance Company Ltd. ...Appellant(cid:1)

Versus

Smt. Bachhi Devi and Others ... Respondents(cid:1)

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMARINDER SINGH GREWAL

Present: Mr. N.K. Manchanda, Advocate (cid:1)

for the appellant.(cid:1)

None for the respondent Nos. 1 to 4.

Respondent No.5 ex-parte.

Mr. Ishan Cooner, Advocate, for(cid:1)

Mr. J.S. Cooner, Advocate,(cid:1)

for respondent No.6.

****

(cid:1)

AMARINDER SINGH GREWAL, J.

1. The present appeal has been filed by the appellant–Insurance

Company seeking to set aside the Award dated 20.01.2000 passed by the learned

Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Panipat (hereinafter referred to as ‘the learned

Tribunal’) whereby the claim petition filed by respondents No. 1 to 4 -claimants on

account of the death of Joginder Ram in a motor vehicular accident on 22.04.1998,

has been allowed

2. Succinctly, the facts of the case are that on 22.04.1998 at about 11:45

p.m., Joginder Ram (since deceased) was proceeding from Shahbad to village

Sulakhani on his scooter bearing registration No.CHE-8993. When he reached near

1 of 5

::: Downloaded on - 09-02-2026 05:34:43 :::

FAO-2156-2000 (O&M) -2-(cid:1) (cid:1)

the Markanda Old Bridge on G.T. Road, a Maruti Van bearing registration No.

DAV-3077 (hereinafter referred to as offending vehicle), driven by respondent

No.5- Jaspal Singh, came from behind and struck the scooter of the deceased. The

said vehicle was being driven in a rash and negligent manner. As a consequence of

the impact, Joginder Ram sustained multiple injuries and succumbed to the same at

the spot. Consequently, the respondent Nos-1 to 4 -claimants being the wife and

children of the deceased, filed a petition claiming compensation for the same. On

20.01.2000, vide the impugned award passed by the learned Tribunal,

compensation to the tune of ₹4,29,500/- was awarded in their favour, holding the

appellant–Insurance Company along with respondent Nos.5 and 6 (driver and

owner of the Maruti Van No. DAV-3077, respectively) jointly and severally liable

to pay the said amount. Affected by the same, appellant–Insurance Company has

filed the present appeal.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant–Insurance Company contended that

the impugned Award, passed by the learned Tribunal, suffers from patent illegality

and material infirmities and is liable to be set aside. It was submitted by the learned

counsel that respondents No.1 and 2, while admitting the factum of accident,

specifically pleaded that the accident occurred due to the rash and reckless driving

of the deceased himself, which aspect has been completely ignored by the learned

Tribunal. Furthermore, the finding of negligence recorded against the driver of

offending vehicle is based on misreading and mis-appreciation of evidence, as the

FIR was initially registered against an unknown person. The involvement of the

offending vehicle was introduced subsequently, on the statement of PW-2-Baldev

Singh. Moreover, the learned Tribunal erred in assessing the monthly income of the

deceased at ₹3,500/- in the absence of any documentary evidence and further erred

2 of 5

::: Downloaded on - 09-02-2026 05:34:44 :::

FAO-2156-2000 (O&M) -3-(cid:1) (cid:1)

in applying the multiplier of 15. Additionally, the amounts awarded under the

heads of consortium, loss of estate and funeral expenses are excessive and

unjustified. Lastly, the findings recorded by the learned Tribunal on all the issues

are based on surmises and conjectures, are not sustainable in the eye of law and,

therefore, the impugned Award deserves to be set aside.

4. Learned counsels for the respondent No.6 submitted that the accident in

question did not occur due to any rash or negligent driving on the part of the driver

of the offending vehicle and that the findings recorded by the learned Tribunal on

the issues are erroneous. It is furth