IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Reserved on: 01.10.2025 Pronounced on: 13.10.2025 M/s The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. …Appellant Versus Rajwant Kaur & others …Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE VIRINDER AGGARWAL Present: Mr. Sahej Mahajan, Advocate, for the appellant-Insurance Company Mr. Sehej Sandhawalia, Advocate, Legal Aid Counsel, for the respondents ******

VIRINDER AGGARWAL, J.

1. The present appeal by the Insurance Company is directed against the award dated 11.08.1999 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, ₹

Gurdaspur, whereby compensation of 2,70,000/- along with interest at rate of 12% per annum from the date of petition has been awarded to the claimants on account of death of Dilbagh Singh in a motor accident.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

2. Dilbagh Singh, aged about 27 years, was working as a conductor with respondent No.2, owner of bus bearng no. PB-06-1110. On 13.08.1997, while the bus was on its way from Kalanaur to Dera Baba Nanak for repairs, it struck against a tree near Shahpur Goraya and turned turtle. Dilbagh Singh sustained serious injuries and died on the way to the hospital. His widow Rajwant Kaur, two minor daughters and mother filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the ₹

Motor Vehicles Act seeking compensation of 5,00,000/-, alleging that they were fully dependent on his income.

3. The learned Tribunal held that the accident had occurred due to mechanical defect in the bus, but nevertheless, the claimants were entitled to compensation as death arose out of the use of the motor vehicle. Monthly ₹ ₹

income of the deceased was assessed at 2100, dependency fixed at 1500, and by applying a multiplier of 15, total compensation was determined at ₹

2,70,000/- along with interest at rate of 12% per annum from the date of petition. Liability was fastened upon the appellant-Insurance Company as the bus stood duly insured on the date of accident, and the compensation was ordered to be apportioned amongst the widow, children, and mother of the deceased.

CONTENTIONS

4. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the learned Tribunal erred in fastening liability on the appellant-Insurance Company despite recording a finding that the accident occurred due to mechanical defect and not rash or negligent driving. It was urged that no postmortem was conducted to establish that Dilbagh Singh died as a result of the accident, and hence the claim was not maintainable. Further, it was submitted that the policy of insurance had already been cancelled since the cheque issued towards premium was dishonoured, and in view of Section 64VB of the Insurance Act, no risk was covered on the date of accident. It was also argued that the learned Tribunal ₹

wrongly assessed the income of the deceased at 2100/- per month merely on ₹

oral evidence, whereas the employer himself admitted his salary to be 1000/-

₹

plus 200/- diet allowance, thereby inflating the compensation.

5. Per Contra, Learned counsel for the respondents supported the award and submitted that the learned Tribunal has rightly appreciated the evidence and assessed just compensation. It was argued that the findings are well-founded and do not call for any interference in appeal.

OBSERVATIONS AND FINDINGS

6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and examined the record, this Court finds no ground to interfere with the well-reasoned award of the learned Tribunal.

7. The learned Tribunal, after a careful appreciation of the evidence, concluded that negligence on the part of the driver was not established and that the accident had occurred when the bus struck against a kikkar tree due to a mechanical defect in the vehicle. In the present case, the deceased was employed as a bus conductor, and the accident had arisen directly out of the use of the vehicle during the course of his employment. Under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the liability to pay compensation arises once it is established that the death or injury occurred “arising out of the use of a motor