IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Reserved on: 01.10.2025 Pronounced on: 13.10.2025 M/S Tara Brothers Through its Proprietor Tara Singh (Since Deceased through his LRs) ......Appellant Versus Indu Ram Lal And Others .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIRINDER AGGARWAL Present: Mr. Vivek K. Thakur, Advocate for the Appellant.

Mr. Banni Thomas, Advocate for the Respondent no. 5 Mr. Paul.S. Saini, Advocate for the Respondent no. 7 *****

VIRINDER AGGARWAL,(J.)

1. The present Appeal filed by the appellant, M/s Tara Brothers (owner of Bus No. CHW-5597), challenging the award dated October 16.10.1992, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT), Ropar, whereby the learned Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs. 1,20,000/- to Respondents Nos. 1 to 3 (claimants) for the death of Naresh Kumar in a motor accident on 21.10.1987. The learned Tribunal held the driver of the bus (Jasbir Singh) solely responsible for rash and negligent driving, making the appellant and the bus insurer (National Insurance Company Ltd.) jointly and severally liable, with the insurer's liability limited to Rs. 15,000/- per passenger as per the policy terms.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

2. On 21.03.1987, the deceased Naresh Kumar was travelling as a passenger in Bus No. CHW-5597 from Mohali to Toansa, and Near Village Behrampur, approximately 7 km from Ropar, the bus collided with Truck No. GTY-6296 coming from the opposite direction. The claimants alleged that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the bus driver, who veered to the wrong side during rain, causing the bus to strike with the truck. Naresh Kumar was thrown out, fell under the bus wheels, and died on the spot. The learned Tribunal consolidated this claim with related petitions for injuries and the death of the truck driver (Gurcharan Singh), and after appreciating the evidence, found the bus driver negligent based on testimonies of injured passengers (Devinderjit Singh PW1, Pawan Kumar PW2, Mahant Prashad PW3) and the second driver of the truck (Kulbir Singh PW8). The learned Tribunal drew an adverse inference against the bus owner for not producing the bus driver as a witness and discounted the conductor's (Bisakha Singh RW2)

testimony as interested.

CONTENTIONS

3. The appellant contends that the learned Tribunal erred in holding the bus driver negligent. He stated that the learned Tribunal wrongly relied on interested witnesses (injured bus passengers claiming compensation) while ignoring the conductor's evidence, who is the most reliable eyewitness. The accident was solely due to the rash and negligent driving of the truck driver (Gurcharan Singh), who did not possess a valid driving license at the time. The learned Tribunal's findings are based on surmises and conjectures, ignoring the acquittal of the bus driver in the related criminal case. In the alternative, if the award is upheld, the entire amount should be recovered from the truck's insurer (New India Assurance Company Ltd.). The appellant has further challenged the leanred Tribunal’s finding limiting the liability of respondent No. 7–National ₹

Insurance Company Ltd., the bus insurer, to 15,000 per passenger, contending ₹

that additional premium of 850 had been paid to cover all passengers and therefore the insurer was legally liable to pay the whole amount of compensation, and it’s liability should not be restricted.

4. Learned counsel for Respondent No. 5-New India Assurance Company Ltd., insurer of the truck, contended that the accident occurred solely due to the rash and negligent driving of the bus driver, Jasbir Singh, and not due to any fault of the truck driver. It was further urged that the truck driver, late Gurcharan Singh, did not possess a valid driving licence at the time of the accident, amounting to a breach of policy conditions, thereby absolving the insurer of any liability. Hence, the liability, if any, was asserted to rest entirely with the owner and insurer of the bus.

5. Learned