134 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO-6030-2025 (O&M)

Date of decision : 27.10.2025 New India Assurance Company Ltd. ...... Appellant Versus Madan Lal & another ..... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE PANKAJ JAIN ***

Present :- Mr. Paul S.Saini, Advocate for the appellant.

***

PANKAJ JAIN, J. (ORAL)

1 Insurance company is in appeal aggrieved of the award dated 07.07.2025 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Hoshiarpur whereby the claimant-respondent No.1 has been awarded compensation of Rs.4,05,143/- holding the appellant-insurance company liable jointly and severally along with the insured.

2 Counsel for the appellant has assailed findings recorded by the Tribunal primarily on issue Nos.1 & 3. Mr. Paul S.Saini, Advocate, submits that it is a case of false implication of the vehicle. He submits that the accident was investigated by the insurance company through investigator who appeared as RW2. In the investigation it was found that the accident in fact occurred due to puncture of tyre and it was not a motor vehicular accident involving the insured vehicle. It is a case where there is no FIR to prove the accident. It has been further contended by Mr. Paul S.Saini, Advocate, that valid license of the driver of the offending vehicle could not be proved. The license which was proved is in name of Khushi Ram son of Ram Nath and not that of Satinder Kumar Behal, the insured. In the absence of valid driving license, evidently the vehicle was being used in violation of the insurance policy and thus the insurance company cannot be held liable to pay the compensation.

3

4 The plea raised by Mr. Paul. S.Saini, Advocate, regarding false implication of the insured vehicle sans merit and cannot be accepted. Reliance is being placed upon investigation conducted by Dolly Rajput, the investigator hired by the insurance company. She appeared as RW2. In her affidavit, she claimed that she investigated the accident in question, but in cross examination even failed to disclose the name of the village she visited during the course of investigation. The Tribunal rightly held that, no responsible person having been associated in the investigation and her statement being discrepant, the investigation report (Ex.R1) cannot be relied upon to return finding on issue No.1. On the other hand, a compromise dated 06.08.2018 between the insured and the claimant has been proved on record as Ex.P144. The owner-cum-driver of the insured vehicle was confronted with the compromise. He admitted the same. Accident is dated 06.08.2018. It has come on record that owing to the injuries suffered by the claimant in the accident, he remained hospitalized. Initially an application was moved before Station House Officer, Police Station Model Town, Hoshiarpur for registration of FIR. After the police authorities failed to take action, claimant filed criminal complaint against respondent No.2 for offences punishable under Sections 279, 337, 338 & 427 IPC. In view thereof, this Court finds that the Tribunal has been rightly guided by preponderance of probabilities to return finding on issue No.1 and has rightly held that the claimant suffered injuries on account of rash and negligent driving of respondent No.2.

5 Qua driving license, both the parties led evidence in support of rival claims. Insurance Company examined Ravi Dutt, Clerk RTA Office, Hoshiarpur as RW3. As per him driving license bearing No.PB-07- 20000041111 dated 01.08.2022 is in name of Satinder Kumar Behal and was valid from 22.07.2022 to 21.07.2032. The same was issued for LMV. The insured examined Gurmeet Singh, Data Entry Operator, RTO Hoshiarpur as RW1. The summoned license is in the name of Khushi Ram. The same was issued on 17.11.2000 and was valid up to 26.07.2022. He further proved copy of the public notice published in Daily Jag Baani newspaper dated 26.06.2005 issuing notice to public at large qua change of his name from Khushi Ram son of Ram Nath to Satinder Kumar Behal son