IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH SATPAL ......Appellant vs.

SORABH (SINCE DECEASED) THROUGH HIS ISHWANTI &

ORS.

......Respondents Reserved on:- 23.01.2026 Pronounced on:- 26.02.2026 Uploaded on:- 06.03.2026 Whether only the operative part of the judgment is pronounced? NO Whether full judgment is pronounced? YES CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA Present: Mr. Kulvir Narwal, Advocate for the appellant.

Mr. Vikas Mohan Gupta, Advocate Ms. Tani Aggarwal, Advocate for respondent No.3-Insurance Company.

SUDEEPTI SHARMA, J.

1. The present appeal has been filed by the appellant-claimant against the award dated 03.12.2018 passed in a claim petition filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Rohtak (for short, 'the Tribunal'), wherein the claim petition filed by the claimant-appellant was allowed and respondent No.3- Insurance company was held liable to pay compensation. The award is challenged on the ground that contributory negligence was wrongly attributed at the ratio of 25% upon appellant-claimant and 75% upon respondent No.1-Sourabh (since deceased), as well as quantum of compensation which is on the lower side.

BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE

2. Brief facts of the case are that on 2.5.2013 he was going from Bahadurgarh towards Jhajjar on a motor-cycle bearing registration No.HR-13G/4805. When he reached near Sarai Mor, Bahadurgarh on Jhajjar-Bahadurgarh road, in the mean-time a motor-cycle Marka Bajaj Pulser (applied for) (here-in-after referred to as the “offending vehicle”) being driven at a very high speed and in a rash and negligent manner by respondent No.1-Sorabh (since deceased) came there from opposite side and after coming on wrong side of the road struck into the motor-cycle of the claimant. As a result thereof, the claimant sustained multiple grievous injuries and was taken to Post Graduate Institute of Medical Sciences (PGIMS), Rohtak where he was medicolegally examined but due to critical condition, he was shifted to Sri Balaji Action Medical Institute, New Delhi where he remained admitted from 2.5.2013 to 5.5.2013 and thereafter, he remained admitted in Medanta Hospital from 5.5.2013 to 18.5.2013 and 2.7.2013 to 6.7.2013. After being discharged, he visited the hospital for follow up treatment. As he did not recover from the injuries, the claimant was again got admitted in Medanta Hospital on 19.7.2013 and remained admitted upto 29.7.2013 and thereafter, from 6.3.2015 to 9.3.2015. During said period multiple operations were done. He had spent more than Rs.20,00,000/- on his treatment. With these averments, he claimed Rs.80,00,000/- as compensation from the respondents, respondent No.1 being owner, respondent No.2 being driver and respondent No.3 being insurer of the offending vehicle. It is pertinent to mention here that respondent No.1 died in the alleged accident and a petition filed by his mother under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act was partly allowed by this Tribunal on 2.7.2016.

3. Upon notice of the claim petition, respondents appeared and contested the claim petition by filing their separate written replies denying the factum of accident/compensation.

4. From the pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal framed the following issues:-

“(1) Whether the accident in question occurred due to rash and negligent driving of vehicle i.e. motor-cycle bearing Chassis No.MD2AIICZ7CCD53708 and Engine No.DHZCCD53205 by respondent No.1 Sourabh (since deceased)? OPP (2) If issue No.1 is proved, whether claimant Satpal had sustained injuries in the above-said accident, if so to what amount of compensation and from whom he is entitled to?

OPP (3) Whether there was wilful violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy, if so to what effect?OPR3 (4) Relief.”

5. Thereafter, both the parties led their evidence in support of their respective pleadings.

6. After taking into consideration the pleadings and the evidence on record, the learned Tribunal a