260 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision : 11.02.2026 National Insurance Co. Ltd. ... Appellant(s)

Versus Rajbala & Ors ... Respondent(s)

CORAM : HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ALKA SARIN Present : Mr. Rahul Pathania, Advocate for the appellant.

Mr. Gourav, Advocate for respondent Nos.1 to 3.

Mr. Sumit Sangwan, Advocate for respondent Nos.4 and 5.

ALKA SARIN, J. (Oral)

1. The present appeal has been preferred by the appellant-Insurance Company aggrieved by the quantum of compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Charkhi Dadri, (hereinafter referred to as ‘Tribunal’) vide the impugned award dated 01.11.2017 as also on the ground that it was a case of contributory negligence.

2. Brief facts relevant to the present lis are that on 18.08.2016 the deceased - Manvinder - was coming from Village Rasiwas to Dadri and when he crossed Village Birhi, a truck/dumper bearing Registration No.HR-61C- 6704 (hereinafter referred to as ‘offending vehicle’), being driven by respondent No.4 herein at a very high speed and in a rash and negligent manner, came from Dadri side and struck into the car of the deceased. The deceased was taken to General Hospital, Charkhi Dadri where he was declared dead. On the statement of Pawan Kumar, FIR No.330 dated 18.08.2016 was registered under Sections 279 and 304-A of IPC at Police Station Sadar Dadri. 3. Upon notice, respondent Nos.4 and 5 herein filed their joint written statement denying the allegations made in the claim petition. It was further stated that even if any compensation is to be granted, the appellant herein, being the insurer, is liable to pay the same. The appellant-Insurance Company also filed its written statement denying the claim of the claimants on the basis of the facts/merits and it was stated that respondent Nos.4 and 5 had violated the terms and conditions of the policy.

4. On the basis of the pleadings, the following issues were framed:

1. Whether the accident in question took place on 18.8.2016 due to rash and negligent driving of truck bearing Registration No.HR-61C-6704 by respondent No.1 and it caused death of Manvinder son of Sh.Sajjan, resident of village Rasiwas, Tehsil Charkhi Dadri, District Bhiwani ? OPP

2. If issue No.1 is proved in affirmative, what would be the amount of compensation payable to the petitioners and by whom ? OPP

3. Whether the present petition is not maintainable in its present form ? OPR

4. Whether the petitioners have no locus standi or cause of action to file the present petition ? OPR

5. Whether the petitioners are estopped from filing this claim petition by their own act and conduct ? OPR

6. Whether the respondent-insurance company is not liable to pay the amount of compensation, as alleged ? OPR

7. Relief.

5. The Tribunal vide the impugned award dated 01.11.2017, while holding the driver, owner and the Insurance Company jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation, had awarded the following compensation :

6. Learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company would contend that it was a case of contributory negligence as the vehicles met with a head-on collision. It is further the contention of the learned counsel that while assessing the income of the deceased, who was working as a Constable, the Tribunal had included the allowances in the income of the deceased, which ought not to have been included.

7. Learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 3 has contended that in the present case no issue was framed qua contributory negligence nor any evidence was led by the owner, driver or the Insurance Company qua contributory negligence. In support of his contention, he has relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of M. Nithya & Ors. vs. SBI General Insurance Company Limited [SLP (Civil) Nos.833-834 of 2023 decided on 03.01.2025]. It is further the contention of the learned counsel that as per the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Nalini & Or