IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

225 IOIN-1-FAO-769-2008 in/and FAO-769-2008 Date of Decision: 27.08.2025 ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.

......Appellant Vs.

CHURIA AND ORS.

......Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA Present: Mr. Ashwani Talwar, Advocate for the appellant.

Mr. Munish Kumar Garg, Advocate Mr. Tanuj Goyal, Advocate for respondent No.1.

****

SUDEEPTI SHARMA J. (ORAL)

1. The present appeals have been filed by the appellant- Insurance company against the Award dated 12.01.2008 passed in a claim petition filed under Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Fatehabad (for short, 'the Tribunal'), wherein the appellant-Insurance company as well as driver and owner of the offending vehicle were fastened with the liability to pay the compensation to the claimant.

BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE

2. Brief facts of the case are that on 22.08.2004 Churia Ram along with Jatin son of Balwant Rai, resident of Narwana was going in a Maruti Zen No. HR-23B-7341 which was being driven by Shishpal son of Soran Singh, resident of Tohana and when they reached near Jai Wanti Bus Stand at about 1 pm 4/5 buffalos came on the road all of a sudden and in order to save the buffalos, the driver stopped the car and in the meantime. a Tata Sumo bearing registration No. HR-46-B-0173 came from the Jind side which was being driven rashly and negligently by respondent No.1 as a result of which driver of the Tata Sumo bearing registration No. HR-46-B-0173 dashed the vehicle against the Maruti Zen driven by Shishpal resulting into injuries upon the person of petitioner Churia Ram and Shishpal after which Shishpal was also got admitted at PGI, Rohtak who ultimately died due to the grievous nature of the injuries sustained by him. The petitioner Churia Ram lodged the FIR with the police under Sections 279/338/304-A of the IPC against the respondent No.1 who is now facing trial. It is stated that respondent No.1 being the driver, respondent No. 2 being the owner and respondent No.3 being the insurer of the Tata Sumo bearing registration No. HR-46-B-0173 and respondent No.4 being the insurer of Maruti Zen No. HR-23- B-7341 are liable to pay the compensation amount to the petitioner namely Churia on account of injuries sustained by him and to the petitioners Savitri and others on account of death of Shishpal in the accident.

3. Upon notice of the claim petition, respondents appeared and contested the claim petition by filing their joint written statement denying the factum of accident/compensation.

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

“1. Whether the petitioner Churia Ram of Petition No.9-MACT of 2005 suffered injuries and Shishpal husband of the petitioner of petition No.10-MACT of 2005 died in an accident caused by the rash and negligent driving of the respondent No.1 while driving his Tata Sumo No.HR-46-B-0173? OPP

2. If issue No.1 is proved in affirmative, to what amount of compensation, the petitioner Churia Ram is entitled to an from whom? OPP

3. If issue No.1 is proved in affirmative, to what amount of compensation, the petitioner Savitri Devi is entitled and from whom? OPP

4. Whether at the time of accident, the respondent No.1 was not holding a valid and effective driving license, if so its effect?

OPR

5. Relief.”

5. Thereafter, both the parties led their evidence in support of their respective pleadings.

6. After taking into consideration the pleadings and the evidence on record, the learned Tribunal awarded compensation to the claimants. However, the liability to pay compensation was fastened upon appellant-Insurance company as well as driver and owner of the offending vehicle.

SUBMISSIONS OF THE LEARNED COUNSELS FOR THE A PPELLANT

7. Learned counsel for the appellant–insurance company submits that in connected claim petitions arising out of the very same accident, adjudicated by other Motor Accident Claims Tribunals, a categorical finding has been recorded attributing ras