227 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH XOBJC-26-CII-2013 (O&M)

Reserved on : 24.02.2026 Date of Decision : 07.03.2026 Uploaded on : 07.03.2026 Whether only the operative part of the judgment is pronounced or whether the full judgment is pronounced : Full Reliance General Insurance Co Ltd ... Appellant(s)

Versus Suman Bala & Ors ... Respondent(s)

2. FAO-681-2013 (O&M)

Yashveer Singh ... Appellant(s)

Versus M/s Reliance Gen Insurance Co Ltd & Ors ... Respondent(s)

CORAM : HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ALKA SARIN Present : Mr. Nigam K. Bhardwaj, Advocate and Mr. Rampal Kohle, Advocate for the appellant in FAO-1459-2012 and for respondent No.1 in FAO-681-2013.

Mr. Rajesh Arora, Advocate for respondent Nos.1 to 5/cross-objectors in FAO-1459-2012.

Service of respondent No.6 in FAO-1459-2012 and respondent No.7 in FAO-681-2013 already dispensed with vide order dated 21.01.2020.

Mr. Rohit Rana, Advocate for respondent No.7 in FAO-1459-2012 and for the appellant in FAO-681-2013.

ALKA SARIN, J.

1. The present order shall dispose off the above captioned two appeals being FAO-1459-2012 filed by the Insurance Company and FAO-681-2013 filed by the owner of the offending vehicle as well as the cross-objections being XOBJC-26-CII-2013 filed by the claimants in FAO-1459-2012 challenging the impugned award dated 05.11.2011 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Faridabad (hereinafter referred to as ‘Tribunal’). The parties are being referred to as the Insurance Company, claimants, owner and driver of the offending vehicle for the sake of clarity.

2. Since the factum of the accident is not in dispute, the facts are not being adverted to for the sake of brevity.

3. The claim petition was filed on account of death of Parmod Kumar in a motor vehicular accident which took place on 13.01.2010. The deceased – Parmod Kumar – was stated to be employed with Jagran Parkashan Ltd., Noida. The Tribunal vide the impugned award, while holding that the driving licence was fake, had granted the recovery rights to the Insurance Company and had awarded the following compensation :

4. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company would contend that since the driving licence was fake, the Tribunal ought to have exonerated the Insurance Company. Learned counsel would further contend that since the deceased was in a private job, hence, future prospects ought to have been 25%

instead of 30%.

5. Learned counsel for the owner of the offending vehicle would contend that there was no evidence on the record to even remotely suggest that the driving licence was fake and only a Surveyor’s report was produced on the record as Ex.PW3/B and no one appeared from the Licensing Authority/RTO Allahabad Office to depose that the licence was fake.

6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the claimants would contend that the Tribunal has applied the deductions on account of allowances and has not taken the entire income into consideration while assessing the compensation. Learned counsel has further contended that the age of the deceased was 45 years and not 46. Learned counsel would further contend that addition of 30% has rightly been made towards future prospects as the deceased was a permanent employee.

7. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties.

8. In the present case the argument raised by the learned counsel for the Insurance Company that since the driving licence was fake, the Tribunal ought to have exonerated the Insurance Company, deserves to be rejected. The Insurance Company submitted a report of a Company by the name of Shadow Technical Advisors and Investigators Pvt. Ltd. as Ex.RW3/B wherein it was stated that instructions had been received for verification of the driving licence of Sanjay Yadav and he visited the RTO Allahabad and met with the concerned person and was verbally informed them that the subject driving licence record was not found, hence, the report. The said witness RW3 - Arvind Kumar - Legal Manager, in his cross examination, stated that he had never