S. No.216 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ****

Date of Decision:7.4.2026

1. FAO No.211 of 2005 (O&M)

Gulshan Bhatia and others .....Appellants Vs.

State of Haryana and others .....Respondents

2. FAO No.214 of 2005 (O&M)

The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. .....Appellant Vs.

Gulshan Bhatia and others .....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHVIR SINGH RATHOR Present:- Mr. B.S. Bedi, Advocate for the appellants in FAO No.211 of 2005.

Mr. Harsh Aggarwal, Advocate for appellant in FAO No.214 of 2005 and for respondent- Insurance Company in FAO No.211 of 2005.

Mr. Rahul Bansal, Advocate for Mr. D.R. Bansal, Advocate for NIC- respondent No.6 in FAO No.211 of 2005.

Mr. Praveen Kumar, DAG, Haryana for respondents No.1 and 4 in FAO No.211 of 2005 and for respondents No.6 and 10 in FAO No.214 of 2005.

****

Yashvir Singh Rathor, J. (Oral)

1. This order shall dispose of above noted two appeals, as the same have emanated out of the same award.

2. This appeal has been instituted against the Award dated 1.11.2004 for enhancement of compensation awarded in MACT case No.11 of 2000 decided by the MACT, Chandigarh (for short “Tribunal”) in a petition under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 vide which a sum of Rs.20,64,678/- has been awarded as compensation to the claimants/appellants alongwith interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of claim petition till realization on account of death of Chandan Bhatia due to rash and negligent driving of the drivers of the truck No.HR-37-1639 (for short, `offending truck’) and Bus No.HR-37-7752 (for short, `offending bus’) in a motor vehicle accident.

FAO No.214 of 2005 (O&M)

3. This appeal has been instituted by the Insurance Company of offending Truck No.HR-37-1639 against the afore-said award vide which the claimants have been awarded a sum of Rs.20,64,678/- as compensation along with interest @ 9% per annum.

4. Case of the claimants is that on 23.9.2000, at about 2:00 AM, deceased -Chandan Bhatia boarded Bus No.HR-37-7752 from Delhi for going to Chandigarh. When the bus reached near Kurukshetra at about 5:00 AM and was being driven by the driver namely Satpal, one truck bearing HR-37-1639 was going ahead of the bus. The driver of the bus had blown horn to overtake the said truck and the driver of the truck Jasbir Singh – respondent No.3 gave a signal to the bus driver allowing him to overtake the truck. When the bus was in the process of overtaking the truck, the driver of the truck suddenly turned his truck towards right side and intentionally applied the brakes as a result of which, the front portion of the bus struck against the truck and the passengers of the bus suffered injuries and Chandan Bhatia died at the spot. It is alleged that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver of the truck and driver of the bus also could not control the bus during the process of overtaking.

5. By way of present petition, a sum of Rs.70,00,000/- was claimed as compensation.

6. Respondents No.1 and 4, who are the owners of the bus, in their written statement have alleged that the accident in question had taken place due to rash and negligent driving on the part of the truck driver against whom FIR was lodged.

7. Respondents No.2 and 3, who are the owner and driver of the truck respectively pleaded that accident took place solely due to rash and negligent driving on the part of the bus driver who was driving the bus on the wrong side of the road in violation of the traffic rules.

8. Respondent No.5/ Insurer of the offending truck raised various preliminary objections and refuted the contents of the claim petition. It is also submitted that the drivers of the truck and bus were not having valid and effective driving licences.

9. Respondent No.6- Insurer of the offending bus opposed the petition on the ground of non-joinder of necessary parties, i.e. driver of the bus. It is also submitted that the driver of the bus was not holding a valid and ef