IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Reserved on: 08^th December 2025 Date of decision: 25^th February 2026 Uploaded on: 27^th February 2026 Lal Singh ........Appellant versus Anil Kumar and Others .......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE HARPREET KAUR JEEWAN Present: Mr. Amit Jain, Advocate for the appellant.

Ms. Maanvi Verma, Advocate, for Mr. Rajneesh Malhotra, Advocate, for respondent No.3-Insurance Company.

HARPREET KAUR JEEWAN, J.

1. The appellant is the claimant, seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Gurugram (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Tribunal’), vide Award dated 01.06.2009, regarding the injuries suffered by him in a motor-vehicle accident.

2. The facts to the relevant extent are that on 21.07.2007, at about 7:30 pm, the appellant was crossing the National Highway-8 when he was hit by a motorcycle, which was being driven by respondent No.1-Anil Kumar. Resultantly, the appellant fell down and sustained multiple grievous injuries, including fracture in the left leg. He underwent treatment in Pushpanjali Hospital, Gurugram and was operated upon in Shubam Hospital, Gurugram. He remained admitted in the hospital for about two months, as such, he filed a claim petition seeking compensation regarding the injuries suffered by him on account of rash and negligent driving by respondent No.1-Anil Kumar. The driver and owner of the motorcycle as well as the Insurance Company contested the claim petition.

3. The Tribunal held that it is a case of ‘contributory negligence’, as such, the appellant was held entitled to 50% of the amount assessed by the Tribunal and an amount of Rs.82,500/- as per the following calculations:-

(a) Medical and other expenses Rs.1,00,000/-

(b) Loss of income Rs.50,000/- (c) Pain and sufferings Rs.15,000/-

Total Rs.1,65,000/-

Issue of Negligence Arguments

4. The learned counsel for the appellant contends that the finding of the Tribunal, that it is a case of contributory negligence, is erroneous. Reliance has been placed on the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in “M. Nithya and others Vs. SBI General Insurance Company Limited”, Civil Appeal arising out of SLP (C) Nos.833-834 of 2023.

5. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.3-Insurance Company contends that the findings of the Tribunal are based on facts and evidence on record and the same require no interference.

6. I have considered the aforesaid contentions and perused the paper-book.

7. It is evident from Para No.4 of the Award, passed by the Tribunal that the Insurance Company has denied its liability on two grounds, firstly, that the motorcycle in question was not involved in the accident and secondly, that respondent No.1 was not holding a valid and effective driving licence at the time of the alleged accident, which is in violation of the terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy. Regarding the driving license, separate Issue No.3 was framed. However, the Tribunal has concluded that this issue was not pressed upon at the time of arguments. Even before this Court, the issue regarding the driving license has not been pressed by the Insurance Company, as such, the only ground to challenge by the Insurance Company is that the motorcycle was not involved in the accident. The Insurance Company has not taken a plea of ‘contributory negligence’. The appellant-claimant has himself appeared as PW-7 and made a statement on oath, as per which, when he was crossing the National Highway, a motorcycle, which came from Manesar side was being driven by respondent No.1 at a high speed, as a result of which, he received multiple injuries. It is also on record that the FIR was registered on the basis of the statement of the appellant-claimant and even the Registration Number of the offending motorcycle i.e. DL-3-SBF-2273 is mentioned in the FIR. The FIR was proved by Head Constable Joginder, Police Station, Sector-10, Gurugram, who appeared as PW-4. It is also on record that respondent No.1-d