(219) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 28.01.2026 MANGAT RAM … APPELLANT VS.

ISHWAR CHAND AND OTHERS …RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE VIRINDER AGGARWAL Present: Mr. Manish Boora, Advocate, Mr. Dharamvir Sharma, Advocate for the appellant.

Mr. Shubham Gupta, Advocate for Mr. D.P. Gupta, Advocate for respondent No.5.

Mr. Ved Parkash, Senior DAG, Haryana.

*****

VIRINDER AGGARWAL,J.(ORAL)

1. This Appeal is directed against the award dated 14.01.2002 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Karnal, whereby the learned ₹

Tribunal awarded a compensation of 3,10,000/- along with interest at 9% per annum to the appellant/claimant on account of injuries sustained in a motor vehicular accident.

BACKGROUND FACTS

2. The facts leading to the present appeal, in brief, are that on 13.07.1999 at about 12:30 p.m. near K.J. Rice Mill on the Kaithal-Karnal Road. Appellant Mangat Ram, aged about 33–34 years, was travelling as a pillion rider on a motorcycle being driven by Dr. Harish Kumar Sharma (since deceased). Another motorcycle was also proceeding ahead in the same direction. A Haryana Roadways bus bearing registration No. HR-45-2191, driven by respondent No.1 Ishwar Chand, came from the Kaithal side at a very high speed and in a rash and negligent manner, without blowing any horn. After narrowly missing the motorcycle ahead, the bus struck the motorcycle of the injured from behind, causing both the rider and the pillion rider to fall on the road. The left front wheel of the bus ran over the motorcycle as well as the occupants, resulting in the death of the driver on the spot and causing multiple grievous injuries to the appellant Mangat Ram. The appellant sustained multiple grievous injuries, including crush injury to left leg (resulting in amputation below the knee at upper 1/3rd level), right femur fracture (rod inserted), fractures to right leg below knee, right hand and arm. He was initially taken to General Hospital, Karnal, referred to PGI Chandigarh, but admitted to St. Stephen Hospital, Delhi. Consequent upon the accident, a claim petition came to be filed by the injured appellant under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, before the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Rohtak (hereinafter referred to as the learned Tribunal), seeking compensation of Rs.20,00,000/-

3. Upon appreciation of the oral as well as documentary evidence led by the parties, the learned Tribunal returned a categorical finding that the accident in question occurred solely due to the rash and negligent driving of the offending Haryana Roadways bus driven by respondent No.1. In arriving at this conclusion, reliance was placed upon the cogent and trustworthy testimony of the injured eye-witness-claimant Mangat Ram(PW-2), duly corroborated by the evidence of Krishan Lal(PW-3), Criminal Ahlmad, along with the police record including the FIR(Ex.P-39), site plan(Ex.P-40), seizure memo(Ex.P-41) and the mechanical inspection report(Ex.P-42). Learned Tribunal also took note of the fact that respondent No.1 was facing criminal prosecution for offences punishable under Sections 279, 337, 338, 304-A and 427 of the Indian Penal Code arising out of the same occurrence. The Learned Tribunal further recorded a finding that respondent No.1 was not holding a valid and effective driving licence at the time of the accident. It was held that the original driving licence bearing No.2672/87 was never issued by the Licensing Authority, Simla, rendering the same a forged document, and consequently, all subsequent renewals based thereon were invalid. Such use of a forged driving licence was held to be in clear violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy, thereby entitling respondent No.5- Insurance Company to recover the compensation amount from the owners of the offending vehicle. Accordingly, respondents No.1 to 5 were held jointly and severally liable, with respondent No.5 directed to satisfy the award in the fir