IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Reserved on: 11.09.2025 Date of decision: 09.10.2025 NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LTD ..Appellant Versus SAROJ DEVI AND ORS ..Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA Present: Mr. Rahul Pathania, Advocate for the appellant.

Mr. Ashok Kaushik, Advocate Mr. Rajesh Lamba, Advocate Mr. Vinod Kumar, Advocate for respondent No.1 to 5.

SUDEEPTI SHARMA , J. (Oral)

1. The present appeal has been filed by the appellant-Insurance company against the award dated 22.11.2012 passed in a claim petition filed under Section 166/140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Palwal (for short, 'the Tribunal'), wherein the appellant-Insurance company was fastened with the liability to pay the compensation of Rs.9,55,800/- to the claimants along with interest @ 7% per annum from the date of filing of claim petition till recovery.

BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE

2. Brief facts of the case are that on 15.2.2007, Sunder Singh son of Siya Ram, aged about 41 years was travelling on his motor-cycle bearing registration no.HR-30A-9216. At that time, he was driving his motor-cycle on a moderate speed. He was followed by one Deshraj son of Shri Chhaju Ram, resident of village Ratipur and Prehlad son of Shri Gurji, resident of Hodal, on their separate motor-cycle bearing registration no.HR-30D-8259. At about 7 p.m. when Sunder Singh had crossed Shyam Rice Mill and Bahadur Kaun of village Baghola on National Highway No.2, one offending tractor with trolley loaded with bricks was found parked negligently by its driver i.e. respondent no.1 in the midst of the road, without following the traffic rules and any indication. Due to the wrong parking of the tractor by the respondent no.1 in the midst of the road, the motor-cycle of Sunder Singh came in contact of the offending tractor-trolley bearing registration No.HR-50-A-6196. Sunder Singh fell down from his motor-cycle and sustained multiple injuries on his person which ultimately resulted into his death after two days i.e. on 17.2.2007 at about 5.45 p.m. The respondent no.1 was the sole author of the accident. The case FIR No.47 dated 18.2.2007 was registered at the instance of Desh Raj son of Chhaju Ram, at Police Station Sadar Palwal. It is further pleaded that the deceased was a daily wager and employed with National Seeds Corporation Limited. His monthly income was Rs.4,681/-.

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

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

1. Whether deceased Sunder Singh died in a vehicular accident caused by respondent no.1 while driving tractor No.HR-50-6196 in a rash and negligent manner on

15.2.2007? OPP

2. Whether the petitioners and proforma respondents are liable to compensation, if so how much and from whom?

OPP

3. Whether the respondents no.1 to 3 have violated the terms and conditions of insurance policy, if so to what effect? OPR4

4. 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 the appellant-

Insurance Company. Hence, the present appeal.

SUBMISSIONS OF LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLANT:

7. Learned counsel for the appellant–insurance company submits that the learned Tribunal has gravely erred in law as well as on facts in holding the driver of the offending tractor negligent. He further contends that the learned Tribunal failed to take into consideration that the driver had already been acquitted of the criminal charges by the competent court vide judgment dated 13.01.2012 (Ex. R3). In view of acquittal, the finding of negligence recorded by the Tribunal is wholly perverse and unsu