IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.1738-2017 (O&M)

Date of pronouncement: 14.02.2025 Shri Ram General Insurance Company Limited ...Appellant(s)

Vs.

Jaspreet Kaur and others ...Respondent(s)

CORAM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA Argued by:- Mr. Rajbir Singh, Advocate for the appellant.

Mr. Ravinder Arora, Advocate for respondents No.1 to 3.

***

NIDHI GUPTA, J.

CM-1896-CII-2025 IN FAO-1738-2017:

This is an application under Order 41 Rule 27 read with Section 151 CPC for placing on record judgment dated 05.09.2023 passed by the learned JMIC, Samrala (Annexure A1) by way of additional evidence.

After going through the contents of the application, the same is allowed subject to all just exceptions and Annexure A1 is taken on record.

MAIN CASE:

Present appeal has been filed by the Insurance Company seeking modification of the Award dated 16.11.2016 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to as “the learned Tribunal”) whereby the claim petition bearing MACT Case No.52 of 01.02.2016 filed by the claimants/respondents No.1 to 3 herein,under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”), has been allowed; and the claimants have been awarded compensation of Rs.20,00,520/- along with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing the petition till realisation.

2. Briefly stated the facts are that the learned Tribunal on the basis of the evidence adduced before it, concluded that the deceased- Lakhwinder Singh had died due to the injuries suffered by himin a motor vehicular accident that took place on 09.01.2016 due to the rash and negligent driving of the truck bearing registration No.PB-11BA-4923 (hereinafter referred to as “the offending vehicle”) being driven by respondent No.4. The appellant, along with Respondents No.4 and 5/driver and owner respectively of the offending vehicle,were held to be jointly and severally liable to pay the above compensation. The 3 claimants are the widow, minor daughter, and father of the deceased-Lakhwinder Singh.

3. Cross objections have been filed by the claimants seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal. Both, the present appeal filed by the insurance company and the cross-objections filed by the claimants, are being disposed of by this common order as they arise out of common Award. For the sake of convenience, the facts are being drawn from, and the parties are being referred to as per their status in FAO-1738-2017 filed by the Insurance Company i.e. The Insurance Company is being referred to as ‘the appellant’;

whereas the cross-objectors are being referred to as ‘the Claimants’.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company assails the impugned Award primarily with the contention that on the date of accident, the deceased was driving his motorcycle without helmet, he had no driving licence, and he even had no registration of the motorcycle that he was riding. As such, he wanted to avoid the Police Post/Naka on the route; and had tried to by-pass the Naka from the side of the truck, whereupon the accident had occurred when the deceased had hit into the bumper of the truck. It is submitted that though even these facts were categorically pleaded in the written statement, no finding has been given thereupon, let alone any contributory negligenceattributed to the deceased. It is submitted that the only findings on the basis of which the appellant has been held liable are contained in Para 11 of the impugned Award which are utterly non-speaking.

5. It is further submitted that the appellant was not given a chance to lead complete evidence. The appellant had moved an application No.1766 dated 07.10.2016 for summoning of the Investigating Officer as witness and even deposited the diet money for the same which was accepted by the learned Tribunal. Though the zimni order dated 07.10.2016 mentions the application of the appellant however, no order is passed upon the same.