IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Reserved on : 19.12.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 09.02.2026 Date of Uploading : 09.02.2026 The Oriental Insurance Company Limited ......Appellant Vs.

Gurmeet Singh 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. Sahej Mahajan, Advocate, for the appellant.

Mr. Jaideep Verma, Advocate, for respondent No.1.

None for respondent No.5.

****

SUDEEPTI SHARMA J .

1. The present appeal has been preferred by the appellant- Insurance Company against the award dated 14.12.2016 passed in the claim petition filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ludhiana (for short, ‘the Tribunal’), whereby the appellant-Insurance company as well as respondents No.2 and 5 were held liable to pay the compensation to the claimant/respondent No.1 to the tune of Rs.4,76,220/- along with interest @ 7.5% per annum on account of injuries sustain by claimant/respondent No.1, jointly and severely, on the ground that negligence is not proved. And on the ground that the compensation awarded is on the higher side.

BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE

2. Brief facts of the case are that on the intervening night of 04/05.10.2008, the claimant was driving the truck bearing registration No.PB-10-BP-7511, accompanied by his cleaner, from Sitapur to Lucknow (U.P.). At about 12:30 a.m., when they reached near Village Alapatpur, Police Station Ettonja, a truck bearing registration No. HR-69-A-1270, being driven by respondent No.2 in a rash and negligent manner, came from the opposite direction while attempting to overtake another vehicle and collided with the truck of claimant. As a result of the impact, the truck of claimant/respondent No.1 was badly damaged and the claimant sustained multiple grievous injuries. The matter was reported by the father of the claimant/respondent No.1 to Police Station Ettonja on 07.10.2008.

3. Upon notice of the claim petition, all the respondents, except respondent No.3, appeared and contested the claim petition by filing their separate written replies and denied the factum of the accident/compensation.

Respondent No.3 was, accordingly, proceeded against ex parte.

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

“1. Whether claimant had suffered injuries in a motor vehicle accident at about 12.30 AM on 5.10.2008 due to rash and negligent driving of Truck No. HR- 69A1270 by respondent No.2 near Village Alapadpur, PS Ettonja on Seetapur-Lucknow Road, in UP?OPP

1A. If issue No.1 is proved, whether claimant is entitled to compensation? If so, from whom and to what extent.OPP 2- Whether the present petition is not maintainable as alleged ? OPR

3. Whether petition is bad for mis-joinder of parties as alleged? OPR4

4. Whether owner and driver of Truck No. HR-69A-

1270 did not have valid travel documents?OPR4

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 claimant/respondent No.1 to the tune of Rs.4,76,220/- along with interest @ 7.5% per annum on account of injuries sustain by him and appellant- Insurance Company as well as respondents No.2 and 3 was held liable to pay the compensation to claimant/respondent No.1 jointly and severely. Hence, the present appeal.

SUBMISSIONS OF THE LEARNED COUNSELS FOR THE PARTIES 7. Learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company contends that negligence on the part of respondent No.3 driver is not proved since father of the claimant/respondent No.1 moved an application to the concerned police authorities admitting the factum that tyre of the truck bearing registration No.PB-10-BP-7511 got brusted, which was result of the accident. He further contends that the learned Tribunal totally ig