##PAGE1##

FAO No. 3672 of 2005(O&M) 1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH

(205) FAO No. 3672 of 2005(O&M)

Date of Decision: 27.02.2026

M/s Anupurna Rice Mills ...Appellant

Versus

Sandeep Kaur and others ...Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIRINDER AGGARWAL

Present: Mr. Sahil Mahendiratta, Advocate and

Mr. Ashutosh Dhankar, Advocate

for Appellants.

Mr. Neeraj Khanna, Advocate for

Mr. Ravinder Arora, Advocate

for Respondent-Insurance Company.

VIRINDER AGGARWAL, J.(ORAL)

1. The present appeal has been preferred by the owner of the offending

vehicle challenging the award dated 15.05.2002 passed by the learned Motor

Accident Claims Tribunal, Chandigarh, to the limited extent whereby recovery

rights have been granted to the insurance company against the appellant-owner.

BACKGROUND FACTS

2. The claim petition arose out of a motor vehicular accident that occurred

on the intervening night of 09/10.02.1999 involving truck bearing registration

No. PJT-1414, owned by the present appellant. The learned Tribunal, upon

appreciation of evidence, held that the accident had taken place due to rash and

negligent driving of the said truck by its driver, Karnail Singh.

3. On the intervening night of 09/10.02.1999, Lt. Col. Sukhjit Singh Sidhu,

aged about 42 years and serving in the Indian Army at Ambala Cantonment,

SAURAV PATHANIA

2026.03.06 15:27

I attest to the accuracy and

integrity of this document

FAO No. 3672 of 2005(O&M) 2

was driving a Maruti Car bearing registration No. PB-04-E-0444 from Patiala

towards Ambala along with three companions. At around 2:15 a.m., near village

Kauli on the Patiala-Rajpura Road, the car collided with the rear of a truck

bearing registration No. PJT-1414, which was loaded with rice husk and being

driven ahead in a rash and negligent manner. The truck driver suddenly applied

brakes without any signal or warning, and the truck lacked rear lights,

contributing to the accident. As a result, Lt. Col. Sukhjit Singh Sidhu and

Amardeep Singh succumbed to their injuries on the spot, while the other two

occupants sustained injuries. The claimants filed a claim petition under Section

166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, seeking compensation of Rs. 65 lakhs,

alleging that the deceased was earning Rs. 19,000/- per month and was a

distinguished officer and international polo player.

4. The learned Tribunal, after appreciating the evidence on record, held that

the accident was caused solely due to the rash and negligent driving of the truck

by its driver, respondent No. 2 (Karnail Singh), who was employed by the

owner, respondent No. 1 (M/s Anupurna Rice Mills). On the issue of

negligence, the learned Tribunal relied on the unrebutted testimony of

eyewitness Capt. S.S. Dhaliwal (PW2) and the claimants' witnesses, noting that

the respondents failed to produce the driver to contradict the version. The

learned Tribunal awarded the total compensation as Rs. 16 lakhs, with interest

at 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition. While directing

the insurer(United India Insurance Co. Ltd.) to satisfy the award in the first

instance, the learned Tribunal granted recovery rights to the insurance company

against the present appellant-owner on the ground that the driving licence of the

truck driver was found to be fake.

SAURAV PATHANIA

2026.03.06 15:27

I attest to the accuracy and

integrity of this document

FAO No. 3672 of 2005(O&M) 3

CONTENTIONS

5. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant-owner contends that the

learned Tribunal gravely erred in fastening recovery rights upon the appellant. It

is argued that the appellant had employed the driver after verifying the driving

licence, which had been renewed by a competent licensing authority, and there

was no willful or conscious breach of the terms and conditions of the insurance

policy. It is further submitted that mere subsequent discovery of the licence

being fake would not ipso facto entitle the insurer to recovery unless willful

breach on the part of the insured is established.

6. Per contr