IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 17.04.2026 Oriental Insurance Company Limited ....Appellant V/s Bimal Kishore & others .…Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKRAM AGGARWAL Present: Mr. Lalit Garg, Advocate for the appellant.

Mr. IPS Kohli, Advocate and Mr. Sidharth Maini, Advocate for respondents No.1 and 2.

***

VIKRAM AGGARWAL, J. (ORAL)

The instant appeal has been preferred by the appellant-

Insurance Company against the award dated 23.09.2011 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jalandhar (for short “the MACT”), whereby claimant-respondent No.2 was held entitled to compensation of Rs.13,01,000/-, on account of the death of one Robin Jassal, in a motor vehicular accident, which took place on 26.04.2010.

2. The claimants-respondents, who are the parents of the deceased (Robin Jassal), instituted a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short “the MV Act”) seeking compensation of Rs.50 lakhs on account of the death of their son.

2.1 The case of the claimants was that on 26.04.2010, at about 5.30 P.M., Robin Jassal was going towards Nakodar-Mehatpur crossing on his motor bike bearing registration No.PB-33-C-2199. When he reached near the shop of one Sajjan Walia, a three-wheeler vehicle Mahindra and Mahindra Geo bearing registration No.PB-08-BM-6211 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the offending vehicle’), being driven by its driver (Mool Singh) in a rash and negligent manner and at a very high speed, came from the side of Mehatpur-Nakodar Railway crossing towards Nakodar and struck against the motorcycle of the deceased. As a result of the impact, Robin Jassal suffered injuries on his person and died on way to the hospital.

3. FIR No.114 dated 26.04.2010, under Sections 279, 304A IPC, was registered at Police Station Nakodar, District Jalandhar.

4. It was averred that the deceased was 25 years old at the time of his death and was employed as an Assistant Manager with Pioneer Assurance Consultants Ltd. and was earning Rs.17,949/- per month.

Accordingly, a sum of Rs.50 lakhs was claimed as compensation.

5. In the joint written statement filed by the driver and owner (respondents No.1 and 2, respectively, in the claim petition), it was averred that the accident took place on account of negligence of deceased Robin Jassal and not because of the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle. It was further asserted that a false FIR had been registered, with a view to get compensation in the claim petition.

5.1 The appellant-Insurance Company raised its usual defences in the written statement that the driver of the offending vehicle was not holding a valid driving licence at the time of accident, the offending vehicle being plied without any fitness certificate and route permit, which was in breach of the conditions of the insurance policy. In the alternative, it was asserted that it was a case of a contributory negligence.

6. From the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed:

“1) Whether Mool Singh, respondent No.1 caused the death of Robin

Jassal s/o Bimal Kishore by rash and negligent driving of motor vehicle

i.e. three wheeler bearing registration No.PB-08-BM-6211 as

alleged?OPA

2) Whether the respondent No.1/driver was not holding a valid and effective driving licence at the time of the accident, if so, to what effect?OPR No.3.

3) Whether the vehicle did not have the fitness certificate and route permit as alleged?OPR

4) Whether the claimants are entitled to compensation, if so to what extent and from whom?OPA

5) Relief.”

7. Parties led their respective evidence.

8. The MACT held that the accident as a result of which Robin Jassal had expired, had taken place on account of the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by its driver.

8.1 The age of the deceased was assessed as 25 years. His income was assessed on the basis of evidence led on the record to be Rs.12,000/-per month and after applying the multiplier of ‘18’ in terms