IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

202 FAO-3431-2017(O&M)

Date of decision: 09.03.2026 United India Insurance Co. Ltd.

...Appellant(s)

Vs.

Babita Rani & Others ...Respondent(s)

***

CORAM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA Present:- Mr. Gopal Mittal, Advocate for the appellant.

Mr. Vivek Suri, Advocate Mr. Dushyant Godara, Advocate for the respondents No.1 to 4/claimants.

***

NIDHI GUPTA, J.

Present appeal has been filed by the Insurance Company against the Award dated 22.11.2016 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Fatehgarh Sahib (hereinafter ‘the learned Tribunal’) whereby Claim Petition No.27 dated 10.03.2016 filed by the claimants/respondents No.1 to 4 herein under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act (hereinafter “the Act”), has been allowed and claimants have been awarded compensation of Rs.26,00,000/- along with interest @ 7% per annum.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the ld. Tribunal on the basis of pleadings and oral & documentary evidence adduced by the parties, concluded that deceased Suresh Kumar had died due to the injuries suffered by him in a motor vehicular accident that took place on 24.01.2016 due to the rash and negligent driving of Activa Scooter bearing registration No.PB-23-L-7339 (hereinafter “the offending vehicle”) being driven by respondent No.5, and insured by the appellant.

3. It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that on 24.01.2016, the deceased was pillion riding behind respondent No.5 on the alleged offending Activa when a stray buffalo had suddenly came on to the road as a result of which respondent No.5 could allegedly not control the Activa by applying brakes due to which deceased fell down on the road; and in the meantime, the unknown truck had hit into the deceased which was also being driven in a rash and negligent manner, thereby causing him multiple grievous injuries as a result of which he died.

4. It is inter alia submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that the learned Tribunal was in error in casting liability to pay the impugned compensation upon the appellant-Insurance Company as it failed to appreciate that the accident in question had not been caused by rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle. It is submitted that it is the own pleaded and admitted case of the claimants that the accident had been caused due to the stray buffalo that had came on to the road and due to the rash and negligent driving of the truck which was being driven rashly and negligently. It is submitted that there is nothing on record to indicate that respondent No.5 was driving the offending Activa Scooter in a rash and negligent manner.

5. Learned counsel points out that pursuant to the accident, FIR No.14 dated 24.01.2016 had been registered at Police Station Gobindgarh on the statement made by respondent No.5. The said FIR has been registered against unknown driver and unknown truck. Contents of the FIR have also been corroborated by ASI Narender Singh, who was the Investigating Officer in the case. The Investigating Officer while appearing as RW2 has specifically deposed that despite complete investigation, Police were unable to trace the truck in question. It is contended that therefore, it is a case of hit-and-run; and there is nothing whatsoever on record to indicate that the accident has been caused due to the rash and negligent driving of the offending Activa by the respondent No.5. Even as per the FIR, there is no negligence on part of the driver of the Activa. However, the learned Tribunal has totally ignored this part of the evidence.

6. It is submitted that therefore, in the above noted facts, learned Tribunal has grossly erred while relying upon the statement of CW2 Kulwinder Singh who claimed himself to be the eyewitness of the occurrence. However, neither his name figured in the FIR nor in the claim petition. Thus, it is abundantly proved that this witness was a procured witness and was examined only to strengthen the case of the claimants and to ca