IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH (104) FAO No. 3188 of 1996 Reserved on: 22-09-2025 Pronounced on: 24-09-2025 Oriental Insurance Company … Appellant Versus Hardev Singh Kaundal … Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE VIRINDER AGGARWAL Present: Mr. A.P.S Nain, Advocate, for the appellant-Insurance Company.

None for the respondent *****

VIRINDER AGGARWAL, J.

1. The present appeal has been filed by the appellant-Insurance Company challenging the award dated 26.09.1996 passed by the learned Motor Accident ₹

Claims Tribunal, Fatehgarh Sahib, whereby compensation of 1,25,000/- has been awarded in favour of the claimant on account of injuries and damage sustained in a motor accident, and the liability has been fastened upon the appellant-Insurance Company along with the owner and driver of the offending vehicle.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

2. The accident in question took place on 31.08.1993 at about 1:30 a.m. when the claimant was driving his car bearing registration No. DL-2-CB-7295 on the correct side of the road at a normal speed. While proceeding in this manner, a truck bearing registration No. HR-06A-5062 was found standing stationary in the middle of the road without switching on its parking lights. Due to the reflection of headlights of a vehicle coming from the opposite direction, the claimant’s car collided with the stationary truck. As a result of the impact, the claimant sustained injuries and the car was badly damaged. The claimant accordingly filed a petition before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal seeking compensation for the injuries and loss suffered in the accident.

3. The learned Tribunal held that the accident was caused by the rash and negligent act of the truck driver, who had left the vehicle parked in the middle of the road without proper parking lights, while the claimant was driving on the correct side at normal speed. It further rejected the appellant-Insurance Company’s plea regarding the absence of a valid license, noting that the license on record proved the driver was duly authorized to drive. On the question of compensation, the learned Tribunal assessed the claimant’s entitlement at ₹

1,25,000/-, holding the appellant-Insurance Company, along with the owner and driver of the offending vehicle, jointly and severally liable to satisfy the award.

CONTENTIONS

4. Learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company of the car submitted that the learned Tribunal committed a grave legal error in holding the appellant liable, as the accident occurred solely due to the rash and negligent act of the truck driver, who had left his vehicle stationary in the middle of the road without switching on the parking lights. The car insured by the appellant had no contributory role in the accident, and therefore the appellant cannot be held responsible under the Motor Vehicles Act. It was further argued that the learned Tribunal wrongly exonerated the truck owner and its insurance company while fastening liability on the appellant, which is contrary to settled legal principles. Counsel also submitted that even if there was an initial question about the genuineness of the car driver’s license, he had subsequently produced a renewed license issued by the competent authority, and thus the appellant cannot be held liable on this ground. While the learned Tribunal awarded ₹

compensation of 1,25,000/-, liability must legally rest on the insurer of the vehicle whose negligent act caused the accident, namely, the truck, and since the car driver was not held to be negligent in causing the accident, the appellant cannot be held liable. Accordingly, it was prayed that the appeal be allowed and the award passed against the appellant be set aside.

OBSERVATIONS AND FINDINGS-

5. I have considered the rival submissions and carefully examined the award of the learned Tribunal.

6. Upon careful examination of the record and the award of the learned Tribunal, it is evident that the accident occurred solely due to the rash and negligent act