IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision : 20.02.2025

1. FAO-7156-2019 (O&M)

National Insurance Company Ltd. ..... Appellant versus Ramandeep Kaur and others ...... Respondents

2. FAO-40-2025 Ramandeep Kaur and others ..... Appellants versus Vinod Kumar and another ...... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ JAIN Present: Mr. Paul S. Saini, Advocate for the appellant in FAO-7156-2019.

Ms. Divya Godara, Advocate for respondents No.1 to 5 and 7 in FAO-7156-2019 and for the appellants in FAO-40-2025.

****

PANKAJ JAIN, J. (ORAL)

1. These are two cross appeals impugning the same award passed by MACT, Sirsa.

2. FAO No.7156 of 2019 is at the behest of insurance company disputing the involvement of the vehicle. FAO No.40 of 2025 is at the behest of claimants seeking enhancement of the compensation.

3. As per the claimants, deceased Krishan Singh was returning from village Ottu riding motorcycle on 18.08.2018. When he reached near Suraj Petrol Pump, Rania at around 10.30 p.m., he was hit by the offending vehicle being driven in a rash and negligent manner. Krishan Singh died on the spot at the age of 30 years. He was earning Rs.20,000/- per month as a driver. Claimants claimed an amount of Rs.30 lakhs as compensation.

4. Claim petition was contested by the respondents. Respondent No.1 driver-cum-owner denied the factum of accident. He claimed that a false case has been registered against him.

5. Insurance company-the appellant objected to the petition on the ground of maintainability and contested the same on merits. On the basis of the pleadings, following issues were framed:-

“1. Whether accident in question resulting into death of Krishan Singh had taken place on 18.08.2018 at about 11.00 PM in the area of Town Rania, P.S. Rania, District Sirsa on account of rash and negligent driving of truck Tata bearing registration No.HR-74-4377 by respondent No.1. If so, its effect? OPP

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

3. Whether petition deserves to be dismissed on the ground of maintainability? OPR

4. Relief.”

6. Deciding issue No.1, Tribunal relied upon PW-2 Bhajan Singh. The Tribunal held that driver who was the best person to deny the accident did not step into the witness box. It being not denied that the driver is facing trial after police submitted report against him, it decided issue No.1 in favour of the claimants and against the respondents. The Tribunal further awarded compensation of Rs.17,68,600/- to the claimants along with interest @7.5% per annum from the date of institution of the petition till actual realization.

7. Mr. Paul S. Saini, counsel for the appellant-insurance company has assailed the findings recorded by the Tribunal on issue No.1. He submits that the claimants examined alleged eye witness Bhajan Singh as PW-2. However, his testimony was completely shattered as he admitted that he knew the family of Krishan Singh for the last 20-25 years. He being interested witness cannot be relied upon. He submits that there is overwhelming evidence on record to prove that the vehicle in question was falsely implicated. FIR No.297 dated 19.08.2018 was lodged by father of the deceased against an unknown vehicle and unknown driver. Driver of the offending vehicle was taken into custody on 01.10.2018. He thus, submits that there is a delay of one day in lodging of FIR that too was lodged against an unknown vehicle. Police recorded statement of PW-2, Bhajan Singh. He failed to disclose the mode and manner in which the accident was caused. His statement was recorded only on 16.09.2018. Despite being known to the family, he failed to assign any reason as to why he kept mum from 18.08.2018 till 16.09.2018. He thus, submits that the claimants at the best can be awarded compensation under Section 161 of the Act for hit and run category. He thus, submits that the Tribunal erred in answering issue No.1 in favour of the claimants. In order t