##PAGE1##

FAO-3811-2014 (O&M) -1-

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH

FAO-3811-2014 (O&M)

NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD.

..Appellant

Versus

VIVEK AND ANR.

..Respondents

Reserved on: 04.05.2026

Pronounced on: 14.05.2026

Uploaded on : 20.05.2026

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. Ravinder Arora, Advocate and

Mr. Neeraj Khanna, Advocate

for appellant-Insurance Company.

Mr. Sant Lal Barwala, Advocate

for respondent No.1.

Respondent No.2 proceeded ex parte v.o.d. 08.12.2014.

SUDEEPTI SHARMA, J.

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

company against the award dated 21.01.2014 passed in a claim petition filed

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

Claims Tribunal, Hisar (for short, 'the Tribunal'), wherein the claim petition

filed by the claimant was allowed and appellant-Insurance company was

made liable to pay the compensation.

BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE

2. Brief facts of the case are that on 24.01.2011 the petitioner was

going on his Motor Cycle, bearing registration No.HR-20J/2551,from Satrod

MOHD AYUB

2026.05.20 18:12

I attest to the accuracy and

authenticity of this order/judgment.

FAO-3811-2014 (O&M) -2-

to Buniyad School alongwith his friend Naveen, son of Sanjay Shri Vastav,

resident of Shiv Colony, Hisar. The petitioner drove the motor cycle at a

moderate speed, in the left side of the road and observed all the traffic rules.

At about 3.30 P.M., when they reached near the over-bridge, a Swift Cart,

bearing registration No.HR-20T/0772, driven by respondent No.1 in a rash,

negligent manner and without blowing horn, in a very high speed, came

from opposite side and directly struck into the motor cycle of the petitioner.

Due to the accident, the petitioner and his friend Naveen received serious

and grievous injuries all over their body. The petitioner and Naveen were

shifted to Jindal Hospital Hisar. The petitioner received cervical spine

injuries and the motor cycle of the petitioner was also damaged in the

accident. The petitioner upto the presentation of petition was under treatment

and become permanently disabled due to injuries received in the accident.

First information report No.112, dated 09.02.2011, was registered with

Police Station, Sadar, Hisar.

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 resulting into injuries

to petitioner took place on account of rash and negligent

driving on the part of respondent No.1 while driving vehicle

bearing registration No.HR-20-T/0772? OPP.

2. If issue No.1 is proved, whether the petitioner is entitled

to claim compensation. If so, how much and from whom?

OPP.

MOHD AYUB

2026.05.20 18:12

I attest to the accuracy and

authenticity of this order/judgment.

FAO-3811-2014 (O&M) -3-

3. Whether insured/owner of the vehicle has violated terms

and conditions of the insurance policy, if so to what effect?

OPR2.

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 claimant.

Hence, the present appeal.

SUBMISSIONS OF LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:

7. Learned counsel for the appellant–Insurance Company contends

as under:-

i. That the learned Tribunal has erred in holding that accident

occurred due to rash and negligent driving of respondent No.2

(driver-cum-owner of the offending vehicle).

iii. That there is glaring contradiction in the testimony of

PW-4. Therefore, he prays that the present appeal be allowed.

8. Per contra learned counsel for claimant/respondents No.1

contends as under:-

i. That learned Tribunal has rightly held that accident

o