IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 24.02.2026 Aabid and others ....Appellants Versus IFFCO Tokio General Insurance Company and others …..Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKRAM AGGARWAL Present: Mr. Ashish Gupta, Advocate, for the appellants.

Mr. Sanjeev Kodan, Advocate, for respondent No.1.

VIKRAM AGGARWAL, J. (Oral)

The instant appeal has been instituted by the appellants (respondent Nos. 1 to 4 in the claim petition) against the award dated 03.09.2024 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Nuh (for short `the MACT’), whereby while allowing the claim petition filed by the claimants, the Insurance Company, was given a right to recover the compensation awarded to claimants, from the appellants.

2. A claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short `the MV Act’) was instituted by the parents of one Munshad. It was pleaded that on 08.11.2022 at about 11 A.M., claimant-Waseem along with his minor son (Munshad) aged 4 years, was going to their fields at Kultajpur.

They were walking on the left hand side of the berm of the road, when a Tractor (hereinafter referred to as `the offending vehicle’), which was being driven by appellant No.1 in a rash and negligent manner, came from the front side and hit Munshad as a result of which he fell down and sustained serious multiple injuries. He was taken to General Hospital, Manikhera, wherefrom he was referred to Government Medical College, Nalhar. Thereafter, he was referred to Trauma Centre, Delhi, but he succumbed to his injuries. FIR No. 337 dated 09.11.2022 under Sections 279 and 304-A IPC was registered at Police Station, Nagina. Accordingly, compensation of Rs.15,00,000/-

was claimed.

3. The appellants filed their joint written statement denying the factum of accident. In the alternative, it was pleaded that as the offending vehicle was insured, the liability if any, should be fastened upon the Insurance Company (respondent No.5 in the claim petition).

The Insurance Company filed its separate written statement averring therein that the offending vehicle was falsely involved by the claimants in connivance with the police officials. It was further asserted that the accident, if any, had occurred due to the negligence of the deceased himself with some unknown vehicle. It was further pleaded that respondent No.1 was not having a valid driving licence and that he had violated the terms and conditions of the insurance policy.

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

1. Whether the respondent No.1 caused accident in question on 08.11.2022 at about 11.00 A.M., by driving offending vehicle, Tractor, bearing registration No. HR-93-5239, in a rash and negligent manner resulting into causing death of Munshad son of Waseem, as alleged? OPP

2. If issue No.1 is proved, to what amount of compensation petitioners are entitled to and from whom? OPP

3. Whether respondents No. 1 to 4 have violated the terms and conditions of insurance policy, if so, to what effect? OPR-5

4. Relief.

5. Parties led their respective evidence.

6. Vide award dated 03.09.2024, the MACT partly allowed the claim petition holding the claimants entitled to compensation of Rs.8,27,000/-. However, it was directed that the Insurance Company will have a right to recover the compensation amount from the appellants.

7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties.

8. The sole argument that has been raised by learned counsel for the appellants is that the MACT erroneously came to the conclusion that since the offending vehicle was a tractor with a trolley and only the tractor had been insured, it would amount to violation of the terms and conditions of insurance. It has been submitted that the said finding is not sustainable in view of the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in The Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Limited Vs. Smt. Honnamma & others, 2025(2) RCR (Civil) 777, wherein it was held that even where a trailer is attached to the tra