IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH M/s C and C Construction Co. ......Appellant vs.

M/s Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. & ors. ......Respondents Date of Reserve: April 24, 2026 Date of Pronouncement:- 27.04.2026 Date of Uploading:- 07.05.2026 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. Kabir Sarin, Advocates for the appellant.

None for respondent No. 1.

Service upon respondent No. 2 dispensed with vide order dated 14.10.2014 Mr. Naresh Kaushik, Advocate for respondent Nos. 3 and 4.

****

SUDEEPTI SHARMA J.

1. The present appeal has been preferred by the appellant-Insurance Company against the award dated 27.02.2013 filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Panchkula (for short, 'the Tribunal’) on the ground that liability to pay the compensation to the tune of Rs. 7,74,600/- to the claimants/respondent Nos. 3 and 4 has been wrongly fastened upon the appellant-Company.

FACTS NOT IN DISPUTE

2. Brief facts of the case are that on 19.6.2010 at 7.00PM, Mewa Singh along with his brother were going on a cycle to Pinjore for purchasing house hold goods. They had reached near Yadvindra Garden, Pinjore, when a Tipper bearing registration No. PB-05-M-6852 came from Pinjore side at a high speed and in a rash and negligent manner and it came on the wrong side and hit the deceased. The deceased fell down and suffered injuries. He was taken to PHC Pinjore, from where he was referred to General Hospital, Sector 6, Panchkula. He was referred to PGI, Chandigarh, and he died on the way to PGI.

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

4. From the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by the learned Tribunal :-

“(1) Whether the accident in question took place due to rash and negligent driving tipper bearing registration No. PB-05-M-6852. (2) Whether the claimants are entitled to compensation, if so to what amount and from whom? OPP (3) Whether the Tipper in question was being driven against the terms and conditions of the insurance policy and the provisions of Motor Vehicle Act, if so to what effect? OPR (4) Relief.”

5. After taking into consideration the pleadings and the evidence on record, the learned Tribunal awarded compensation to the claimants/respondent Nos. 3 and 4. However, the appellant-Company was held liable to pay the compensation to the claimants/respondent Nos. 3 and 4. Hence, the present appeal.

SUBMISSION OF LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES.

6. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that at the time of employment of the driver, due diligence was exercised by the employer. He further contends that the driver was subjected to a driving test and his driving licence was duly verified, which, on the face of it, appeared to be genuine. Despite such precautions, the learned Tribunal has erroneously fastened the liability upon the appellant–owner of the offending vehicle on the ground that the driver of the offending vehicle was not holding a valid and effective driving licence. On this premise, he prays that the present appeal be allowed and the liability to satisfy the award be shifted to respondent No.1–Insurance Company.

7. Per contra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.3 and 4–claimants has supported the impugned award and submitted that the learned Tribunal has rightly appreciated the evidence on record and correctly determined the issue of liability. He, thus, prays that the present appeal be dismissed.

8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with their able assistance.

9. It would be apposite to reproduce relevant portion of the award. The same is reproduced as under:-

“ISSUE NO. 3

20. The insurance company had taken a plea that the driving licence was fake. The respondents had examined Somya Ranjan Panda, Senior Mana