225-1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO-186-2015 (O&M) and XOBJC-216-CII-2015 (O&M)

Date of Decision : 22.01.2026 Shri Ram General Insurance Company Ltd.

... Appellant Versus Minakshi and Others ... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ALKA SARIN Present : Mr. Rajbir Singh, Advocate for the appellant.

Mr. Sumit Gupta, Advocate for respondent Nos.1 to 3.

ALKA SARIN, J. (Oral)

CM-20782-CII-2015

1. This is an application for condonation of delay of 138 days in filing the present cross-objections.

2. For the reasons stated in the application, the same is allowed. The delay of 138 days in filing the cross-objections is condoned. However, the claimants shall not be entitled to any interest for the period of delay in filing the cross-objections.

FAO-186-2015 & XOBJC-216-CII-2015

3. Learned counsel for the parties’ state that since the involvement of the offending vehicle is in dispute, no useful purpose would be served by referring the matter to the Mediation and Conciliation Centre of this Court.

4. This order shall dispose off the appeal being FAO-186-2015 filed by the Insurance Company and the cross-objections being XOBJC-216-CII- 2015 filed by claimants aggrieved by the award dated 30.09.2014 passed by

2-

the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jhajjar (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Tribunal’). The parties are being referred to claimants, driver and owner of the offending vehicle and the Insurance Company for the sake of clarity.

5. Briefly, the facts relevant to the present lis are that on 27.03.2012 Rakesh Kumar (hereinafter referred to as the ‘deceased’) alongwith Rohit was travelling on a motorcycle. They both were on their way to village Barhana from village Gangtan. The deceased was the rider of the motorcycle. At about 10.30 pm, when they were crossing the Railway Crossing which falls near village Barhana, a truck bearing registration No.HR-69-9988 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘offending vehicle’) came from the side of village Barhana, which was being driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner and at a high speed and struck against the motorcycle of the deceased by coming on to the wrong side of the road. Due to the accident, the deceased and the pillion rider, namely, Rohit sustained grievous injuries. They both were taken to the PGIMS, Rohtak where the deceased was declared dead by doctor. Postmortem was conducted. FIR No.93 dated 28.03.2012 for offences under Sections 279, 337 and 304-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 was registered at Police Station Beri on the statement of one Manjeet. Statement of Rohit (injured) was subsequently recorded under Section 161 CrPC wherein he gave the registration number of the offending vehicle. The driver and owner of the offending vehicle filed their joint written statement denying the contents of the claim petition and the factum of the accident was specifically denied. The Insurance Company filed its separate written statement raising various preliminary objections. On merits, the factum of the accident was denied, and it was stated that the Insurance Company was not liable to pay the compensation.

3-

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

1. Whether accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of vehicle bearing Regn. No.HR-69-9988 by respondent No.1 ? OPP

2. Whether the petitioners are entitled to recover compensation from respondents ? If yes, quantum of compensation payable to them ? OPP

3. Whether respondent no.1 and 2 violated the terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy ? OPR3

4. Relief.

7. The Tribunal, holding that it was a case of rash and negligent driving by driver of the offending vehicle, held the Insurance Company liable to pay the compensation.

8. The Tribunal had awarded the following compensation :

9. Aggrieved by the quantum of compensation, the Insurance Company has filed the present appeal being FAO-186-2015 and the cross- objections being XOBJC-216-CII-2015 have been preferred by the claimants

4-