##PAGE1##

FAO-6703-2023 (O&M)

-1-

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH

FAO-6703-2023 (O&M)

CHOLAMANDALAM MS GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.

..Appellant

Versus

KAJAL AND ORS.

..Respondents

Reserved on: 15.05.2026

Pronounced on: 18.05.2026

Uploaded on : 21.05.2026

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 – Insurance Company.

Mr. Manish Jain, Advocate

Mr. Ketan Antil, Advocate

for respondent Nos.1 to 4.

None for respondents No.5 and 6.

SUDEEPTI SHARMA, J.

1. The present appeal has been filed by the appellant-Insurance

company against the award dated 09.10.2023 passed in a claim petition filed

under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 by the Motor Accident

Claims Tribunal, Rewari (for short, 'the Tribunal'), wherein the claim

petition filed by the claimants was allowed and appellant-Insurance

company was held liable to pay the compensation.

BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE

2. Brief facts of the case are that on 16.05.2020 at about 11.00

PM, deceased Sarvesh Mudgal was going to Bhiwadi byepass in his Verna

MOHD AYUB

2026.05.21 18:26

I attest to the accuracy and

authenticity of this order/judgment.

FAO-6703-2023 (O&M)

-2-

car bearing registration no. RJ-40CA-2508 and when he reached near

Kajaria Society, Bhiwadi Alwar road, Bhiwadi, then a canter bearing

registration no. RJ-02GB-9496, being driven by its driver in a very rash and

negligent manner and at a very high speed came from wrong side and hit the

car of deceased, due to which, he died on the spot itself. The accident has

been caused solely due to rash and negligent act of driver Deen Mohd. while

driving the offending vehicle in a very rash and negligent manner and at a

very high speed, without following the traffic rules. The accident was

reported to the police vide First Information Report No. 224 dated

07.05.2020 for the offence under Sections 279 and 304A of Indian Penal

Code at Police Station Bhiwadi was registered. It is alleged that the deceased

was aged about 43 years and was working as AGM in Munjal Auto

Industries Limited, Dharuhera, Rewari and getting a salary of Rs. 1,50,000/-

per month. Petitioners have claimed an amount of Two Crores & Fifty Lacs

as compensation.

3. Upon notice of the claim petition, respondents appeared and

contested the claim petition by filing their separate written replies denying

the factum of accident/compensation.

4. From the pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal framed the

following issues:-

“1. Whether the accident in question took place due to

rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle

Canter bearing registration no. RJ-02GB-9496 by the

respondent no. 1 causing death of Sarvesh Mudgal son of

Shiv Dutt Mudgal? OPP

MOHD AYUB

2026.05.21 18:26

I attest to the accuracy and

authenticity of this order/judgment.

FAO-6703-2023 (O&M)

-3-

2. If issue no. 1 is proved, to what amount of

compensation, the claimants are entitled and from whom?

OPP

3. Whether the respondent no. 1 was not holding valid

driving licence? 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 while awarding compensation to the respondents-claimants vide the

impugned Award, learned Tribunal erred in ignoring the fact that the

respondents-claimants were the permanent residents of the District Alwar in

Rajasthan and the accident in question also took place in the area falling

within the above-said State. He furthermore contends that the claim petition

was not maintainable before learned Tribunal as learned Tribunal did not

have jurisdiction to decide the same. He furthermore contends that learned

Tribunal has also not taken the fac