IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Reserved on : 17.09.2025 Date of Pronouncement: 22.09.2025 New India Assurance Company Limited ......Appellant Vs.

Jasvir (since deceased) through his legal representatives and others ......Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA Present : Mr. Rajneesh Malhotra, Advocate, for the appellant-Insurance Company.

Mr. Sarbjit Singh Khaira, Advocate, for respondents No.1 to 3.

****

SUDEEPTI SHARMA J. (ORAL)

1. The present appeal has been preferred against the award dated 13.08.2008 passed in the claim petition filed under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Gurdaspur (for short, ‘the Tribunal’), whereby the claimants/respondents No.1 to 3 were granted compensation to the tune of Rs.1,52,000/- along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum on account of death of Rajiv Kumar and the appellant-Insurance Company as well as respondents No.4 & 5 (owner and driver of offending vehicle) were held liable to pay the aforesaid amount of compensation, jointly and severely.

FACTS NOT IN DISPUTE

2. The brief facts of the case are that on 03.06.2004, appellant No.1 along with her husband-Mukhtiar Masih, son-Rajiv Kumar and daughter-Neena Marry, were travelling from Batala to Chandigarh in a Maruti Car bearing registration No.PB-018-G-0131, which was being driven by respondent No.2-Denial. When they reached near Beas Bridge at about 5:30 a.m., a Canter bearing registration No.PB-021-D-9602, being driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner, came from the opposite side and forcefully hit the car. Due to the said impact, the car was pushed to the right side and its front portion was badly damaged. As a result of the accident, appellant No.1, her husband-Mukhtiar Masih and son-Rajiv Kumar sustained multiple injuries and were admitted to Satyam Hospital, Trauma Center, Kapurthala Road, Jalandhar. Appellant No.1 remained admitted in the hospital till 10.06.2004. Son-Rajiv Kumar remained under treatment till 25.07.2004, but unfortunately succumbed to his injuries on that day at about 12:30 p.m. Similarly, husband-Mukhtiar Masih remained admitted in the hospital till 11.06.2004 and succumbed to his injuries on the same day at about 02:40 p.m. In this regard, FIR No.26 dated 06.06.2004 was registered at Police Station Dhillwan under Sections 279, 337, 338, 427 and 304-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

3. Upon notice of the claim petition, respondents appeared through their counsel and filed their written reply denying the factum of accident/compensation.

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

“1. Whether Rajiv Kumar died in road side accident on 03.06.2004 at about 5.30 A.M. in the area of Village Dhilwan while traveling in Maruti Car No.PB-018G- 0131 driven by respondent No.2 when Cater No.PB-021- D-9602 driven by the driver had hit against the car driven by the Denial? OPP.

2. Whether the claimants are the legal representatives and were dependent upon the deceased? OPP

3. Whether the Claimants are entitled to compensation? If so how much and from which of the respondents? OPP

4. Whether driver of the car was not holding a valid and effective driving license? OPR

5. Whether petition is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties? OPR

6. Whether petition is not maintainable in the present form? OPR

7. Relief.”

5. Thereafter, both the parties have led their respective 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 tune of Rs.1,52,000/- along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum on account of death of Rajiv Kumar and the appellant-Insurance Company as well as respondents No.4 & 5 (owner and driver of offending vehicle) were held liable to pay the aforesaid amount of compensation, jointly and severely.

Hence, the present appeal.

SUBMISSIONS OF LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE PA