IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision :17.02.2026 NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. ... APPELLANT VERSUS ISHWAR KUMAR ...RESPONDENT CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PARMOD GOYAL Present: Mr. Deepak Suri, Advocate for the appellant.

Mr. Narender Singh Kamboj, Advocate for respondent No. 3.

****

PARMOD GOYAL, J.

1. The present appeal has been preferred by the appellant–Insurance Company, being aggrieved by the award dated 25.10.1999 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Hisar (hereinafter referred to as “the Tribunal”), whereby the claim petition filed by the injured-claimant was allowed and a ₹

compensation of 1,31,000/- was awarded along with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of realization.

2. The injured-claimant had sought compensation on account of the injuries sustained by him in motor vehicular accident dated 23.04.1997, allegedly caused by respondent No. 1 due to rash and negligent driving of truck bearing registration No. HR-24-A-7381 (hereinafter referred to as “offending vehicle”). As per the averments made in the claim petition, on 23.04.1997, the claimant was proceeding from the Court crossing towards the town on his moped bearing registration No. HR-20-B-7785, which was being driven by him, with one Madan Lal as the pillion rider. When they reached near the T-point before the overbridge, near to the traffic lights, on noticing the red signal, the claimant had stopped his moped. In the meantime, a motorcycle also came and stopped at the red light. Thereafter, the offending truck came from behind without blowing any horn. It was alleged that the driver was driving the truck in rash and negligent manner and had struck against the moped as well as the motorcycle, resulting in the claimant and others falling down and sustaining injuries. The injured-claimant was initially taken to the Civil Hospital, Hisar where he was admitted for 2 days and thereafter remained admitted at Arora Orthopaedic Hospital, Hisar, where he underwent surgeries, including fixation of a hip implant and discharged on 13.05.1997. The claimant had sought compensation ₹

to the tune of 6,00,000/-, asserting that he was 30 years of age at the time of ₹

the accident, working as an agriculturist and earning 8,000/- per month.

3. The claim petition was not contested by respondent Nos. 1 and 2, though they had put in appearance on few dates before the Tribunal. The appellant–Insurance Company, however, contested the claim by filing its written statement and denied its liability on various grounds.

4. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by the learned Tribunal:

(1) Whether and the accident took place due to the rash and negligent driving of truck No. HP-24-A/7381 driven by respondent No.1 Chanchal Singh? OPP (2) In case issue No.1 is proved, to what amount of compensation the claimant is entitled to and from which of the respondents?

OPP (3) Whether the Insurance company is not liable for the reasons stated in the preliminary objection? OPP.

(4) Relief.”

5. Learned counsel for the appellant has assailed the findings of the learned Tribunal on Issue Nos. 1 and 2. However, there is nothing on record to hold that the findings recorded by the learned Tribunal are erroneous or perverse. 6. The injured-claimant had stepped into the witness box as PW-2 and fully supported the version as set out in the claim petition as well as in the FIR (Ex. P-47). His testimony remained unrebutted and is consistent with the earliest version disclosed immediately after the occurrence in the shape of the FIR. The manner of accident, as narrated therein, duly corroborates the statement of injured-claimant before the learned Tribunal. No evidence was led on behalf of the respondents to deny either the occurrence of the accident or the manner in which it took place as deposed by PW-2. Admittedly, respondent No. 1–driver of the offending vehicle is facing trial in respec