IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO-1418-2017 (O&M) Reserved on: 07.11.2025 Pronounced on: 11.12.2025 ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. ….Appellant Vs.

SAROJ AND OTHERS …..Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJA Present: Mr. Harsh Aggarwal, Advocate for the appellant.

Mr. Ravinder Malik, Advocate for respondent Nos. 1 to 4.

Service qua respondent No. 5 stands dispensed with vide order dated 08.09.2022.

None for respondent No. 6 despite service.

****

HARKESH MANUJA, J.

1. The present appeal has been filed by the Insurance Company against the Award dated 25.10.2016 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Rohtak (hereinafter referred to as “the Tribunal”), in MACT Petition No. 40 of 2016 dated 17.05.2016 filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”), whereby the claim petition of the claimants/respondents No. 1 to 4 herein, was allowed and compensation of Rs. 15,83,000/- has been awarded to them. The 4 claimants are the widow and 3 minor children of deceased Sanjay.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the Ld. Tribunal on the basis of the pleadings as well as oral and documentary evidence adduced before it concluded that Sanjay died due to injuries suffered by him in a motor vehicular accident which took place on 16.02.2016 at about 5:30/6:00 a.m. due to rash and negligent driving of Volkswagen Polo car bearing registration No. HR-29-AE-5055 (hereinafter referred to as “the offending vehicle”) by respondent No. 6. The offending vehicle was owned by respondent No. 5 and insured by the appellant.

Accordingly, learned Tribunal awarded compensation in the following manner:-

S.No. Heads of Claim Amount (in Rs.)

1. Monthly Income of Deceased Rs. 8,100/- 2. 30% Future Prospects Rs. 2,700/-

3. Total Income (Rs. 8,100 + Rs. 2,700) Rs. 10,800/-

4. Deduction (1/4^th) Rs. 8,100/-

5. Multiplier (15) (8,100 x 12 x 15) Rs. 14,58,000/-

6. Loss of love and affection Rs. 1,00,000/-

7. Funeral Expenses Rs. 25,000/-

8. Total Compensation Rs. 15,83,000/-

ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLANT/INSURANCE COMPANY

3. Learned counsel for the appellant/Insurance Company assailed the impugned Award by submitting that the appellant was disputing the very involvement of the offending vehicle. Learned counsel elaborated to submit that the accident had taken place on 16.02.2016; in respect of which FIR No. 74 dated 16.02.2016 under Sections 279 and 304-A IPC was registered at Police Station Sampla by Satyawan (PW-3)/brother of the deceased. Satyawan (PW-3) was not an eyewitness to the accident. Accordingly, an FIR was registered against unknown vehicle and unknown person. It was submitted that, as per the FIR, the accident took place with an unknown vehicle and therefore, claim petition u/s 161 MV Act was maintainable and not a petition u/s 166 MV Act, 1988.

3.1 It was further pointed out that the driver of the alleged offending vehicle was apprehended only on 03.03.2016, i.e. after an inordinate delay of nearly 14-15 days from the date of accident. The delayed arrest, coupled with the absence of any independent eye-witness to the alleged occurrence, raises serious doubts regarding the genuineness of the claim set forth by the claimants. He also submitted that the circumstances on record clearly suggest that the offending vehicle was subsequently and falsely implicated in the FIR with the sole motive of securing compensation on account of the unfortunate demise of the deceased, thus the Award passed by the learned Tribunal be set aside.

ON BEHALF OF THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE CLAIMANTS/RESPONDENTS NO. 1 TO 4

4. Learned counsel for the claimants/ respondents No. 1 to 4 vehemently opposed the prayer made on behalf of the appellant and submitted that the claimants had produced voluminous cogent evidence including the testimony of Satyawan (PW-3), according to which the driver of the offending vehicle himself came to their house along with 4-5 family members and respectable of the village fo