IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH BALJIT SINGH ..Appellant Versus BALWANT SINGH AND ANR.

..Respondents Reserved on: 17.04.2026 Pronounced on : 18.04.2026 Uploaded on: 21.04.2026 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: Ms. Deepika, Advocate for Mr. S.K. Yadav, Advocate for the appellant.

Mr. Sachin Gupta, Advocate for Mr. Sachin Ohri, Advocate for respondent No.2-Insurance Company.

SUDEEPTI SHARMA, J.

1. The present appeal has been filed by the appellant/driver-cum- owner of the offending vehicle against the award dated 17.07.2015 passed in a claim petition filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Narnaul (for short, 'the Tribunal'), wherein the appellant was fastened with the liability to pay the compensation of Rs.2,81,800/- to the claimants along with interest @ 9% 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 the accident which took place on 30.10.2012, at about 12:30 PM near Aakash Polytechnic Board, Kanina by respondent no.1 while driving his Motor cycle bearing Registration no.HR34F/4333 at high speed, in rash and negligent manner without observing rules of road. It has been averred that on 30.10.2012 the petitioner along with his brother Hoshiyar Singh was going from one field to another field on feet and at about 12:30 PM when they reached near the Board of Aakash Polytechnic, Kanina then from Gahda side one motor cycle bearing registration no.HR34F-4333 came, which was being driven by its driver i.e. respondent no.1 Baljeet Singh in a rash and negligent manner and gave a direct hit to him, as a result thereof the petitioner sustained simple as well as grievous injuries. He was taken to Aditya hospital, Rewari for treatment from where he took the treatment. This accident has taken place due to the sole negligence of the respondent no.1 by driving his motor cycle in a rash and negligent manner. FIR no.303 dated 7.11.2012 under Sections 279, 337 and 338 IPC, Police Station Kanina was got registered.

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 petitioner Balwant Singh sustained injuries in a road side accident which took place on 30.10.2012 at about 12:30 PM near M. Aakash Polytechnic Board, Kanina due to rash and negligent driving of motor cycle bearing registration no.HR-34F-4333?OPP

2. To what amount of compensation, if any, and from whom the claimant is entitled ?OPP

3. Whether the vehicle in question was being driven by respondent no.1 in violation of terms and conditions of insurance policy?OPR

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. However, the appellant/driver-cum-owner of the offending vehicle was fastened with liability to pay compensation to the respondent No.1/claimant.

Hence, the present appeal.

SUBMISSIONS OF LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLANT:

7. Learned counsel for the appellant/driver-cum-owner of the offending vehicle contends that learned Tribunal has gravely erred in fastening the liability to pay compensation to respondent No.1/claimant upon appellant/driver-cum-owner on erroneous premise that the appellant/driver- cum-owner of the offending vehicle does not possess the valid and effective licence at the time of accident. Therefore, he prays that the present appeal be allowed and respondent No.2-insurance company be held solely liable to pay compensation to claimant-respondent No.1.

8. Learned counsel for respondent No.2-insu