IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH DATE OF DECISION:04.02.2026 RAJINDER SINGH ...APPELLANT VERSUS BALDEV SINGH AND ORS. ...RESPONDENTS FAO-6684-2018 (O&M)

DATE OF DECISION:04.02.2026 JASPAL KAUR ...APPELLANT VERSUS BHARTI AXA GENERAL INSURANCE AND ORS ...RESPONDENTS FAO-1612-2017 (O&M)

DATE OF DECISION:04.02.2026 BALDEV SINGH ...APPELLANT VERSUS BHARTI AXA GENERAL INSURANCE AND ORS. ...RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PARMOD GOYAL Present: Mr. Arjun Veer Sharma, Advocate for the appellant in FAO-1115-2017.

Ms. Vandana Malhotra, Advocate (through V.C.) and Ms. Manvi Verma, Advocate for the respondent-Insurance Company in all three appeals.

Mr. Suneet Pal Singh Aulakh, Advocate for respondent No. 4 in FAO-1115-2017 and FAO-1612-2017.

Mr. Suneet Pal Singh Aulakh, Advocate for appellant in FAO-6684-2018. Mr. Gurbir S. Dhillon, Advocate for appellant in FAO-1612-2017.

****

PARMOD GOYAL , J. (ORAL)

Three appeals, one by appellant-claimant Rajender Singh seeking enhancement of compensation (FAO No.1115 of 2017), second by driver of offending vehicle-Baldev Singh-Respondent No.1 (FAO No.1612 of 2017), and third by owner of offending vehicle namely Jaspal Kaur (FAO No.6684 of 2018) have arisen from impugned award dated 05.11.2016 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ludhiana (hereinafter referred to as ‘Tribunal’), vide which the claimants were found entitled to compensation of Rs.6,63,000/-. The learned Tribunal had further held that owner and driver- respondent Nos.1 and 2 shall be responsible to make the payment of compensation so awarded, however directed respondent No.3-Insurance Company to pay the compensation at first instance and then get it recovered from respondent Nos.1 and 2 i.e. driver and owner of offending offending vehicle.

2. Claimant is seeking enhancement of compensation on the ground that same is not in accordance with their entitlement and is insufficient compensation. Respondent Nos.1& 2- Baldev Singh and Jaspal Kaur, driver and owner of offending vehicle are aggrieved by fixation of liability to pay compensation upon them on the ground that learned Tribunal has exonerated Insurance Company wrongly and it was the Insurance Company who was liable to indemnify respondent No.2-owner of offending vehicle being bound by contract of insurance.

3. Respondent No.3-Insurance Company, on the other hand though has not filed any appeal, is aggrieved by direction of learned Tribunal to pay and recover on the ground that since offending vehicle was being driven in contravention of insurance contract/policy, therefore, it has no liability to indemnify or pay on behalf of owner and driver of offending vehicle and the liability to pay compensation ought to have been imposed only on respondent Nos.1 and 2.

4. Claimants who are parents of deceased Ravinder Singh (hereinafter referred to as ‘deceased’), who died in motor vehicular accident which took place on 30.10.2013 on account of rash and negligent driving of respondent No.1 while driving offending vehicle bearing registration number PB-10DQ-6803, had preferred a claim petition which was allowed vide impugned award dated 05.11.2016 awarding compensation of Rs.6,63,000/-.

FAO No.6684 of 2018 (O&M) & FAO No.1612 of 2017 (O&M)

5. Appellant(s) driver and owner of offending vehicle have challenged finding of learned Tribunal on issue No.1 regarding involvement of offending vehicle and rash and negligent driving on the part of Baldev Singh- driver. It is asserted that learned Tribunal has failed to take into consideration evidence of RW1 driver of offending vehicle and solely has relied upon evidence of PW1.

6. On consideration, I do not find any error in the conclusion drawn by learned Tribunal as regards to issue No.1. Learned Tribunal has duly considered the evidence of PW1, who happens to be eye-witness and author of FIR, RW-1, driver of offending vehicle and RW-2, official from insurance company. As far as RW-2 is concerned, he was neither present at the time of