IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

212 Date of decision: 04.02.2026 DARSHAN SINGH ....Appellant Versus AMRIK SINGH AND ORS ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHVIR SINGH RATHOR Present : Mr. N.S. Virk, Advocate for the appellant.

Mr. Kuldeep, Advocate for Ms. Manvi Singla, Advocate for respondent No.2.

Mr. P.S. Dhaliwal, Advocate for respondents No.3 and 5.

Mr. Vikas Chaudhary, Advocate for respondent No.7.

YASHVIR SINGH RATHOR. J.(Oral)

1. This appeal is directed against the Award dated 09.02.2000 passed in MACT Case No.14 by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Barnala (for short “Tribunal”) in a petition under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 vide which a sum of Rs.87,000/- has been awarded as compensation to the claimant on account of injuries suffered by him in a motor vehicular accident and respondents No.1, 2 and 7, who are driver, owner and insurer of offending vehicle No.PIP- 7756, were held liable to pay the amount of compensation to the claimant jointly and severally.

2. Mr. Vikas Chaudhary, Advocate has put in appearance on behalf of for respondent No.7, and filed his Vakalatnama, which is taken on record.

3. The only issue required to be determined in the present appeal relates to assessment of compensation on account of the injuries suffered by the appellant and, therefore, the entire facts of the case with regard to the manner of accident are not required to be reproduced here for the sake of brevity as Tribunal has come to the conclusion under issue No.1 that accident in question had taken place on account of rash and negligent driving on the part of respondents No.1, while driving the offending vehicle bearing No.PIP-7756, which was owned by respondent No.2 and insured with respondent No.7 and the said finding has not been assailed by the respondents either by filing any appeal or cross-objections.

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

“1. Whether Darshan Singh died due to rash and negligent driving of the disputed Van No.PIP-7756 by Amrik Singh respondent No.1 owned by Karamjit Singh respondent No.2 and insured with National Insurance Co. respondent as alleged?OPA

2. Whether the tractor in question bearing No.PCT 3662 being driven by Bahadur Singh respondent No.3 owned by Jodh Singh etc. and other respondents, was also involved in the accident? If so the extent of involement of the truck driver, owner and insurance Co. of the same?OPA

3. If issue No.1 and 2 are proved whether the claimant is entitled to received compensation? If so from whom and to what extent? OPP.

4. Whether the claim petition is not maintainable? OPR.

5. Whether this Court has no jurisdiction to try and entertain this claim petition?OPR

6. Whether the claim petition is bad for non-joinder and mis-joinder of parties?OPR

7. Whether the driver of the offending vehicle was not holding a valid driving licence at the time of accident? OPR.

8. Relief.”

5. Thereafter, the parties led evidence in support of their case.

6. After hearing the parties and going through the material on the file, learned Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.87,000/- as compensation to the claimant along with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of filing of claim petition till realization.

7. Feeling aggrieved, the appeal in hand has been preferred. The material on file has been perused and parties have been heard.

8. At the very outset, it is pertinent to mention that the record of the appeal as well as the Tribunal has got burnt in a fire incident in the branch and the appeal in hand shall be decided as per facts and evidence mentioned in the award passed by the Tribunal.

9. As per version of appellant, he was 38 years of age at the time of accident and was earning Rs.5,000/- per month and he has suffered injuries and is entitled to compensation.

10. The compensation granted to the appellant has been assessed by the Tribunal in paras No.19 and 20 of the award which is reproduced as under:-

“19. Claimant Darshan Singh as PW.5 says that he spent