IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 23.03.2026 Balwinder Singh ….Appellant Versus Kulwinder Kaur & ors. ....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA Present:- Mr. Sukhjit Singh, Advocate for the appellant.

Mr. Onkar Rai, Advocate for respondent No.4.

Mr. Radhe Shyam Sharma, Advocate for respondent No.6-Insurance Company.

..…

NIDHI GUPTA, J. (Oral)

1. The present appeal has been filed by the “owner” of the offending vehicle (respondent No.1-A before the learned Tribunal) laying challenge to the impugned Award dated 05.12.2017 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ludhiana (for short “the learned Tribunal”) in MACP case No.86 of 03.11.2015 filed under Sec8on 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereina;er ‘the Act’) whereby an amount of Rs.16,77,976/- along with interest @ 6% per annum was awarded as compensa8on to the claimants- respondents No.1 to 3. Vide impugned Award, liability to pay the aforesaid compensa8on has been affixed upon the respondent No.6-Insurance Company to be recoverable from the appellant on the ground that on the date of accident, Appellant was the owner of the offending vehicle.

2. It is submiCed by learned counsel for the appellant that the liability to pay the compensa8on of Rs.16,77,976/- has been affixed upon the appellant on account of the fact that the learned Tribunal has held that the appellant was owner of the offending vehicle on the date of accident i.e. 09.10.2015. It is submiCed that the said finding was given by the Tribunal on the basis of statement made by respondent No.4 herein (respondent No.1 before the Tribunal), who was the registered owner of the offending vehicle, to the effect that the offending vehicle has been sold to the appellant by respondent No.4 on 09.10.2015 vide the Sale Affidavit Ex.R-1. Learned counsel for the appellant refers to the said Sale Affidavit Ex. R-1 to submit that a bare reading thereof shows that the offending vehicle was sold to the appellant only on 10.10.2015 i.e. a(cid:2)er the accident dated 9.10.2015. Thus, a clear erroneous finding of fact has been given by the learned Tribunal on a misreading of the evidence on record. It is further submiCed that on date of accident, appellant was not the registered owner of the offending vehicle and for this reason as well liability could not have been fixed upon him.

3. Prima facie, learned counsel for respondents No.4 and 6 are unable to deny the aforesaid submissions made on behalf of the appellant. Learned counsel for the respondent no.6 however, points out that the issue regarding quantum of compensa8on already stands seCled by a coordinate Bench of this Court vide judgment dated 31.05.2018 passed in FAO-2913-2018 (O&M) 9tled as ‘The New India Assurance Company Limited Vs. Kulwinder Kaur & ors.’; whereby compensa8on payable to the claimants was reduced to Rs.10,88,400/- along with interest @ 7.5% per annum, which has aCained finality.

4. Heard.

5. A perusal of the Sale Affidavit Ex.R-1 shows that as per stamp of Notary Public, Jagraon, Ludhiana, offending vehicle was sold by the respondent No.4 to the appellant on 10.10.2015 i.e. a;er the accident had already occurred on 09.10.2015. Moreover, there is no finding of learned MACT in the Award as to who was the registered owner of the offending vehicle on the date of accident. Accordingly, in view of the factual posi8on noted above, the present case is remanded back to the learned Tribunal, Ludhiana, to reconsider the maCer only with regard to the ques8on of liability, keeping in view the above noted facts. The par8es shall be at liberty to lead their evidence.

6. The par8es are directed to appear before the learned Tribunal on

29.04.2026

7. Registry is directed to send a copy of this order to the learned Tribunal concerned through the learned District and Sessions Judge, Ludhiana. However, nothing stated here-in-above shall be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the maCer. 8. Disposed of, accord