##PAGE1##

FAO-775-2012 (O&M) -1-

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH

FAO-775-2012 (O&M)

Reserved on: 07.11.2025

Date of decision: 22.12.2025

Uploaded on: 24.12.2025

PADAM

..Appellant

Versus

GULAB SINGH AND ORS.

..Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA

Present: Mr. Digvijay, Advocate

for Mr. Vikram Singh, Advocate

for the appellant.

Ms. Tarranum Madan, Advocate

for respondent No.1.

Ms. Swatantar Kapoor, Advocate (through v.c.)

for respondent No.3-Insurance Company.

SUDEEPTI SHARMA, J.

1. The present appeal has been filed by the appellant-owner of the

offending vehicle against the award dated 18.10.2011 passed in a claim

petition filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 by the

Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Palwal (for short, 'the Tribunal'), wherein

the appellant/driver of the offending vehicle was fastened with the liability to

pay the compensation of Rs.70,000/- to the claimant/respondent No.1 along

with interest @ 8% 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 1.9.2008, at about 8.30 PM

Mahender Singh and Satbir Singh were going from Palwal to the village

SAHIL

2025.12.24 09:32

I attest to the accuracy and

authenticity of this order/judgment.

FAO-775-2012 (O&M) -2-

Misa on motorcycle No.HR 30-C 1275, Make Hero Honda. When they

reached Shani Dev Mandir, near village Sihaul-Kherla crossing, a

motorcycle No.HR 30-G-0148 (hereinafter referred to as offending vehicle)

being driven by respondent No.1 came from the side of village Chandhat at a

very high speed and struck against motorcycle HR 30C-1275. The petitioner

was a pillion rider on the said motorcycle. Due to the collision, occupants of

both the motorcycles fell down and received injuries. Satbir Singh who was

driving motorcycle No.HR 30C 1275 succumbed to his injuries and died at

the spot. The petitioner also received injuries in the accident and he was

admitted in Government hospital, Palwal where he was medically examined

by Dr. J.P Parshad. Thereafter, he remained admitted from 8.9.2008 to

17.9.2008 in B.K. Hospital, Faridabad. He has spent Rs.35000/- on his

treatment and he is still under treatment. He was running a Kiryana shop at

village Lohagarh and was earning Rs.10000/- per month, but due to the

injuries sustained in the accident he could not do his work for a long time

and suffered loss of income. The accident in question took place due to

negligence of respondent No.1 and case FIR No.214 dated 2.9.2008 under

section 279/337/427/304 IPC was registered against him regarding accident

in question.

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:-

“i) Whether the accident has taken place on 1.9.2008 at

8.30 P.M at Shanidev Mandir, near Sihol Kherla Chowk,

SAHIL

2025.12.24 09:32

I attest to the accuracy and

authenticity of this order/judgment.

FAO-775-2012 (O&M) -3-

Tehsil & Distt Palwal on account of rash and negligent

driving of offending vehicle No.HR 30 G 0148 driven by

respondents No.1. If so, whether the petitioner sustained

injuries in this accident?OPP

ii) If first issue No.1 is proved, whether the petitioner is

entitled to claim compensation. If so, to what amount and

from whom?

iii) Whether the respondent No.1 was not holding any

valid and effective driving licence at the time of alleged

accident.

iv) 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 claimant.

However, the respondent No.3-Insurance Company was held liable to pay

compensation at first instance and recovery rights were given to respondent

No.3-Insurance Company to recover the same from appellant-driver of the

offending vehicle. Hence, the