IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CHOLAMANDLAM MS GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED ..Appellant Versus SANTOSH AND OTHERS ..Respondents Reserved on: 12.12.2025 Date of decision: 10.02.2026 Uploaded on: 10.02.2026 Whether only the operative part of the judgment is pronounced? NO Whether full judgment is pronounced? YES CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA Present: Mr. Punit Jain, Advocate for the appellant.

Mr. Amit Chaudhary, Advocate for respondent No.1 to 5.

SUDEEPTI SHARMA , J. (Oral)

1. The present appeal has been filed by the appellant-Insurance company against the award dated 10.01.2019 passed in a claim petition filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Fatehabad (for short, 'the Tribunal'), wherein the appellant- Insurance company was held liable to pay the compensation of Rs.20,86,000/- to the claimants along with interest @ 7.5 % 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 26.06.2017, Sube Singh (deceased) alongwith Rajender was going to Bhuna on the motor-cycle bearing registration no.HR22M/8074 driven by Sube Singh at moderate speed on his side. When they reached at a distance of 2 km from Bhuna in front of Oil Pipeline office towards Jandli Khurd, the offending tractor- trolley bearing registration no.HR22N/5320 was going towards Bhuna, driven by its driver i.e. respondent no.1 at high speed, rashly and negligently. When Sube Singh was crossing the offending tractor-trolley, respondent no.1 all of a sudden stopped it in between the road and struck in the motor-cycle. Due to this, Sube Singh and Rajender Singh alongwith motor-cycle fell down on the road and Sube Singh sustained multiple grievous injuries on his head and other parts of his body. He was taken to CHC, Bhuna and after first aid, he was referred to higher centre and was admitted in Maharaja Aggarsen Medical College and Hospital, Agroha but he succumbed to the injuries during his treatment. Statement of Rajender, eye witness of the accident was recorded and case bearing FIR No.233 dated 27.06.2017 under Sections 279, 337, 304-A of IPC was registered against respondent no.1 and he is facing trial before the court at Fatehabad. The accident took place due to the negligence of respondent no.1 of vehicle tractor-trolley no.HR 22N/5320 under the employment/authorization of respondent no.2 and the insurer/respondent no.3. Thus, the respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation.

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:-

“1. Whether Sube Singh son of Gopal, died in the accident in question which took place due to rash and negligent driving of vehicle bearing registration no.HR22N/5320 by respondent no.1?OPP.

2. If issue no.1 is proved in affirmative, then whether the petitioners are entitled to the compensation, to what extent and from whom?OPP.

3. Whether there was contravention of terms and conditions of insurance policy, if so to what effect?OPR-

3.

4. 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 claimants.

Hence, the present appeal.

SUBMISSIONS OF LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:

7. Learned counsel for the appellant–Insurance Company contends that learned Tribunal has wrongly decided issue No.1 whereas, respondents No.1 to 5 claimants could not prove the factum of accident, therefore, he prays for dismissal of the present appeal.

8. Per contra learned counsel for the respondent-claimants contends that learned Tribunal has rightly awarded the compensation to the claimants/respondents No.1 to 5.