IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Cross Objection 57-CII-2014 and FAO-2652-2013 (O&M)

Date of Reserve:11.09.2025 Date of Pronouncement:-22.09.2025 New India Assurance co. Ltd. ……Appellant Versus Geeta Devi and others …Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA ****

Present: Mr. Bhushan Kumar, Advocate for Mr. Aditya Jain, Advocate for the appellant in FAO No. 2652-2013 and for the respondent-Insurance Company in Cross Objection-57-CII-2014.

Mr. Aditya Jain, Advocate for respondent Nos. 1 to 4/cross objectors.

Mr. Amandeep, Advocate for Mr. Chanderhans Yadav, Advocate for respondent No. 6 in FAO No. 2652-2013.

****

SUDEEPTI SHARMA J.

1. Appeal and cross objections, as noticed above, are being disposed of by this common judgment, having arisen out of the impugned award dated 14.02.2013 passed by the learned Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal, Rewari, whereby the claimants/respondent No. 1 to 4 were awarded compensation to tune of Rs.21,59,864/- along with interest @6% per annum.

FACTS NOT IN DISPUTE

2. On 25.2.2011 at about 5.30 p.m., Krishan Kumar (since deceased) was going towards Bawal from Banipur Chowk on National Highway No.8 on his motorcycle at moderate speed and when he reached near Rudh bridge, Bawal, a truck bearing registration No.HR-47-1198 being driven in a rash and negligent manner and at a very high speed by respondent No.1 came from behind and hit the motorcycle of the deceased. Due to the impact of the accident, the deceased fell down on the road and sustained grievous and fatal injuries on the vital parts of his body and succumbed to the injuries at the spot. The accident in question was caused due to the rash and negligent driving of truck bearing registration No.HR-47-1198 by respondent No.l. FIR No.27 dated 25.2.2011 under Sections 279,304-A of Indian Penal Code was registered in Police Station, Kasola.

3. Upon notice of the claim petition, respondents-driver, owner and Insurance Company appeared and denied the factum of accident/compensation.

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

1) Whether deceased Krishan Kumar died in a motor vehicular accident on account of rash and negligent driving of vehicle bearing registration No. HR-47-1198 by respondent No. 1 on 25.02.2011? OPP

2) If Issue No. 1 is proved, to what amount of compensation, the claimants are entitled to and from whom? OPP

3) Whether respondent No. 1 was not holding a valid and effective driving licence to drive the offending vehicle at the time of accident? OPR

4) Relief.”

5. After taking into consideration the pleadings and the evidence on record, the learned Tribunal awarded compensation to the tune of Rs.21,59,864/- alongwith interest @ 6% per annum. Hence the claimants/cross objectors filed the cross objections for enhancement of compensation awarded by the Tribunal and the appellant-Insurance Company has filed the present appeal on the ground that the learned Tribunal has wrongly granted the compensation to the claimants/respondent Nos. 1 to 4. Hence the present appeal as well as cross objections.

SUBMISSIONS OF LEARNED COUNSELS FOR THE PARTIES

6. Learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company submits that the claim petition has wrongly been allowed and the claimants/respondent Nos. 1 to 4 are not entitled to compensation. He further contends that the amount awarded by the learned Tribunal is on the higher side. Therefore, he prays that the present appeal be allowed.

7. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No. 1 to 4/cross objectors contends that the appeal filed by the Insurance Company is liable to be dismissed and the cross objections filed by them, is liable to be allowed as the compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal is on the lower side. He further contends that Krishan Kumar (since deceased) was about 51 years of age and was working in Haryana Police as Assistant Sub Inspector. However, the learned Tribunal failed to include future prospects in its calculation. He furth