IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Reserved on: 26.09.2025 Date of Decision: 09.10.2025 ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. ......Appellant(s)

vs.

KAMLA DEVI & ORS ......Respondent(s)

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA Present: Mr. D.P. Gupta, Advocate for the appellant.

Mr. Sandeep Goyal, Advocate for respondent No.1.

Mr. Parveen Kumar, Advocate for respondent No.2.

****

SUDEEPTI SHARMA J .

1. The present appeal has been preferred by the appellant-Insurance Company against the award dated 23.05.2013 passed in the claim petition filed under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Karnal (for short, 'the Tribunal’) whereby the claimants were granted compensation to the tune of Rs.21,800/- and the Insurance Company held liable to pay the compensation.

FACTS NOT IN DISPUTE

2. Brief facts of the case are that on that day Kehar Singh (since deceased) along with Ajmer Singh son of Nimbua Ram had gone to Nissing on motor cycle for personal work. After doing the work there they were coming back to village Gullarpur via Gonder-Gullarpur Road. Kehar Singh was driving the motor cycle whereas Ajmer Singh was the pillion rider. Kehar Singh was driving the motor cycle on due left hand side of the road with normal speed. When they reached near Dera of Sohan Lal, situated within the area of village Gullarpur, meanwhile motor cycle bearing registration No.HR06V-6157 which was being driven by respondent No.1 in a rash and negligent manner and at a very fast speed, without observing the traffic rules, came from the side of village Gullapur and struck against the motor cycle of. Kehar Singh by coming on wrong side of the road. Due to impact of the accident. Kehar. Singh received multiple serious and grievous injuries on all over his body and then succumbed to his injuries. Ajmer Singh also sustained multiple and serious injuries on his person. Regarding this accident, FIR No.230 dated 07.05.2011 (Ex.P2) was got recorded by Ram Kumar son of Shri Chand, younger brother of deceased Kehar Singh. It is pleaded that the accident took place due to rash, negligent and careless driving of motor cycle No. HR06V-6157, which was driven and owned by respondent No.1 and was duly insured with Oriental India Insurance Company Limited, respondent No.2, therefore, both the respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the claimant.

3. Upon notice of the claim petition, respondents appeared and denied the factum of compensation.

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

“(1) Whether Kehar Singh died in an accident dated 07.05.2011 arising out of motor cycle No.HR06V-6157, driven and owned by Om Parkash, respondent No.1, and insured with Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., respondent No.2? OPP (2) Whether the claimant has got no locus-standi to file the present claim petition? OPR (3)Whether the claimant has not come with clean hands in the court? OPR (4) Whether the claim petition is bad for mis-joinder and non-

joinder of necessary parties? OPR2 (5) Whether the claimant is colluding with the alleged owner/insured? OPR2 (6) Whether the motor cycle was being driven by a person not holding a valid and effective driving licence? OP (7) Whether the vehicle was being driven in contravention of terms and conditions of the insurance policy? OPR (8) Whether the claimant is entitled to compensation, if so, how much and from whom?OPP (9) Relief.”

5. After taking into consideration the pleadings and the evidence on record, the learned Tribunal awarded compensation to the claimants. Hence, the present appeal.

SUBMISSION OF LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES.

6. Learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company vehemently argues that the learned Tribunal had wrongly allowed the claim petition of the claimants and awarded the compensation to the claimants.

7. He further contends that the learned Tribunal has wrongly decided Issue No. 1 in favour of the