FAO-478-2002 (O&M) -1- 230 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO-478-2002 (O&M) Date of Decision:28.07.2026 NEW INDIA ASSURANCE. CO. LTD. .....APPELLANT VERSUS SUDESH VERMA AND OTHERS .....RESPONDENTS CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHVIR SINGH RATHOR Present:- Mr. Siddheshwar Hans, Advocate and Ms. Veena Ashwani Talwar, Advocate for the appellant/Insurance Company. Ms. Ekta Thakur, Advocate and Ms. Kesar Arora, Advocate for respondents No.1 to 3. Notice to respondent No.4 dispensed with. Mr. Lalit Attri, Advocate and Mr. Sunil Kumar Sharma, Advocate respondents No.5 and 6. **** YASHVIR SINGH RATHOR, J. (ORAL) 1. In the present case, driver, owner and insurer of offending Tractor No.PB-32-8150 have been held liable to pay compensation to the claimants jointly and severally. The present appeal has been filed by the Insurance Company disputing its liability to indemnify the insured and as such, there is no necessity to issue notice to the driver/respondent No.4 and issuance of notice to respondent No.4 stands dispensed with. 2. This appeal has been instituted by the Insurance Company against the Award dated 17.10.2001 decided by MACT, Chandigarh (for short “Tribunal”) in MACT Case No.65 of 08.04.2000 in a petition under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short ‘Act) vide which a sum VISHAL VARDHAN 2026.07.29 18:29 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-478-2002 (O&M) -2- of Rs.7,20,000/- has been awarded as compensation to the claimants (respondents No.1 to 3 in the present appeal) on account of death of Rishi Pal Verma, along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till realization in a motor vehicular accident which took place due to rash and negligent driving on the part of respondent No.1 (respondent No.4 in the present appeal) while driving the Tractor bearing No.PB-32-8150 (for short ‘offending vehicle’), owned by LRs of respondents No.2 i.e. 2(i) & 2(ii) (respondents No.5 and 6 in the present appeal), which was insured with respondent No.3 (appellant in the present appeal) and Insurance Company has been held liable to pay the compensation to the claimants along with respondents No.1/driver and 2(i) & 2(ii)/owner of the offending vehicle, jointly and severally. 3. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant as well as respondents and have gone through the material on the file. 4. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company argued that the impugned award is based on conjectures and surmises. The pleadings of the parties and material on file have not been appreciated in the correct perspective while fastening liability upon the Insurance Company. Learned counsel next contended that the Award passed by the Tribunal is wrong in law and same is liable to be set aside. Learned counsel further contended that excessive compensation has also been awarded to the claimants which is also liable to be reduced. Learned counsel for the appellant prayed that the finding on issue No.4 be reversed and the Insurance Company be held liable to indemnify the insured. VISHAL VARDHAN 2026.07.29 18:29 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-478-2002 (O&M) -3- 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondents has argued that the finding recorded by Tribunal is well reasoned supported by evidence and dismissal of appeal has been sought. 6. At the very outset, learned counsel for the respondents has placed on file a copy of judgment dated 15.12.2008 passed in FAO-1104- 2002 which shows that claimants had also instituted an appeal for enhancement of compensation in which Insurance Company had also been impleaded as a respondent. The appeal filed by the claimants has been allowed vide judgment dated 15.12.2008 and compensation has been enhanced from Rs.7,20,000/- to Rs.8,90,000/-. At the time of decision of FAO-1104-2002, Insurance Company was duly represented by its counsel and as such, the finding arrived at in FAO-1104-2002 vide which compensation has been enhanced cannot be reopened in the present appeal instituted by the Insurance Company. Even otherwise, a perusal of award shows that the driver of the offending Tractor was holding a valid and effective driving licence which had been tendered as Ex.R1 and Insurance Company thus has been rightly held liable to indemnify the insured. 7. In view of the aforesaid discussion, there is no merit in the ap- peal and the same is ordered to be dismissed with costs. 8. Pending misc. application (s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. (YASHVIR SINGH RATHOR) JUDGE 28.07.2026 Vishal Vardhan Whether Speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No VISHAL VARDHAN 2026.07.29 18:29 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document