FAO-7261-2011 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 116 FAO-7261-2011 (O&M) Date of decision: 14.07.2026 The Oriental Insurance Company Limited ....Appellants Versus Dhani Devi and others and others ....Respondents CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSH BUNGER ***** Present: Mr. Rohit Kataria, Advocate, for Ms. Anamika Mehra, Advocate, for the appellant. Mr. B. S. Mittal, Advocate, for respondents No.1 and 2. Mr. Akash Aggarwal, Advocate, for Mr. Dheeraj Narula, Advocate, for respondent No.3. ***** HARSH BUNGER J. (ORAL) 1. The present appeal has been filed by the insurance company challenging the Award dated 17.10.2011 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sirsa (hereinafter referred as “MACT”), whereby a claim petition filed by respondents No.1 and 2 (claimants) under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (in short “1988 Act”), has been partly allowed by awarding a sum of Rs.4,83,600/-. 2. Briefly, respondents No.1 and 2 herein filed claim petition under the 1988 Act seeking motor accident compensation on account of DINESH 2026.07.23 17:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-7261-2011 (O&M) -2- demise of Shri Arjan Dass, who was the husband of respondent No.1 herein and father of respondent No.2 herein. 3. In the claim petition, it was pleaded by respondents No.1 and 2 herein that on 26.01.2010, Shri Arjan Dass son of Jot Ram (since deceased) alongwith Shankar Lal was coming to Sirsa from village Bakarianwali in a jeep bearing No. HR-24B-2501, which was being driven by respondent No.3 herein (Prem Kumar) in a rash and negligent manner and when the jeep reached near village Rangri, all the occupants of the jeep requested Prem Kumar to drive the jeep at a moderate speed however, he did not care and while driving the jeep rashly and negligently, he lost control over the jeep and as a result of which, the jeep struck with a Kikkar tree and all the occupants of the jeep received serious and grievous injuries. Arjan Dass is stated to have succumbed to the accidental injuries at the spot and his post mortem was conducted at General Hospital, Sirsa. Even a case FIR No.16 dated 26.01.2010 was registered against Prem Kumar in Police Station Sadar, Sirsa. The offending jeep was stated to be owned by respondent No.3- Prem Kumar only and insured with the present appellant (Oriental Insurance Company Limited). In the claim petition, compensation to the tune of Rs.10,00,000/- was claimed. 4. Upon issuance of notice in the claim petition, respondent No.3- Prem Kumar being the driver-cum-owner appeared and contested the same by filing his written statement. Similarly, present appellant-insurance company also contested the claim by filing its separate written statement. DINESH 2026.07.23 17:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-7261-2011 (O&M) -3- 5. From the pleadings of the parties, the learned Tribunal framed the following issues:- “1. Whether Arjan Dass died in a road accident on 26.01.2010 which took place on account of rash and negligent driving of Jeep No.HR-24B-2501 by respondent No.1, as alleged? OPP 2. To what amount of compensation the petitioners are entitled to and from whom? OPP 3. Whether the petition is not maintainable in this present form? OPR 4. Whether the petitioners have got no cause of action and locus sandi to file the present petition? OPR 5. Whether the petitioners have suppressed the true and material facts from this Tribunal, if so to what effect? OPR 6. Relief. 6. The parties led their respective evidence (oral as well as documentary) on the aforesaid issues. 7. Learned Tribunal, after considering the material available on record, returned findings under issue No.1 that the deceased Arjan Dass suffered accidental injuries on account of rash and negligent driving on the part of respondent No.3-Prem Kumar, who was driving the offending jeep, which resulted into the death of Arjan Dass. Under issue No.2, learned Tribunal held that the claimants were entitled to Rs.4,83,600/- as compensation and respondent No.3-Prem Kumar as well as the insurance company were held liable to indemnify the claimant jointly and severally. On the basis of the findings returned on various issues, learned Tribunal vide DINESH 2026.07.23 17:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-7261-2011 (O&M) -4- impugned Award dated 17.10.2011, partly allowed the claim petition filed by respondents No.1 and 2 herein by granting the following relief: - “26. Therefore, in view of above findings on the foregoing issues, this claim petition is hereby accepted partly with costs and an award of Rs.4,83,600/- (Rs. Four lack eighty three thousand and six hundred only) is hereby passed in favour of the claimants together with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of filing the petition till realization of the entire amount awarded amount to be paid by the respondents jointly and severally. Out of the aforesaid amount of compensation, the amount of compensation shall be shared by the claimants as follows: - (i) Claimant No.1 Dhani Devi = Rs.3,83,600/- (ii) Claimant No.2 Balbir Singh = Rs.1,00,000/- 27. It is further ordered that the awarded amount of the share of claimant No.1 and 2 shall be deposited in their respective names in some nationalized bank in the shape of F.D.Rs, initially, for a period of five years each and no loan or advance shall be given against the said FDRs. However, the claimants shall be entitled to receive monthly interest accrued upon the said FDRs in view of ratio laid down in Sarla Verma and others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another’s case (supra) Bank Manager shall make a note of this stipulation on the FDRs itself and in case of emergent requirement of money the claimants shall be at liberty to approach the Tribunal for premature encashment of their F.D.Rs.” 8. Feeling aggrieved against the same, the insurance company has filed the present appeal before this Court. 9. Learned counsel for the appellant-insurance company has primarily raised two submissions before this Court. Firstly, that the driving DINESH 2026.07.23 17:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-7261-2011 (O&M) -5- licence of respondent No.3-Prem Kumar (driver-cum-owner of the offending vehicle), which was exhibited on record as Ex.R-5, was issued by the licensing authority, Mathura and upon verification report received by the appellant-insurance company, the same was found to be fake therefore, the appellant-insurance company cannot be held liable. Secondly, it is submitted that the compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal is on the higher side. 10. Learned counsel for the respondents herein have opposed the submissions raised on behalf of the appellant-insurance company by referring to an order dated 26.04.2018 passed by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the present appeal and also the report dated 01.09.2018 submitted by the learned Tribunal. Accordingly, prayer for dismissal of the appeal has been made. 11. I have heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the paper-book with their able assistance. 12. As far as the first contention raised on behalf of the appellant- insurance company that the driving licence of respondent No.3-Prem Kumar (driver-cum-owner of the offending vehicle) was fake, it is noticed that while considering the said plea raised on behalf of the appellant, a co-ordinate Bench, on 26.04.2018, had passed the following order:- “Perusal of record of the Tribunal shows that owner/driver of the offending vehicle was allowed to produce his driving licence at the time of accident in additional evidence, vide order dated 17.09.2011. He placed on record the copy of the driving licence as EX. R-6 on 14.10.2011. Without affording any opportunity to the Insurance Company to rebut the evidence produced by DINESH 2026.07.23 17:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-7261-2011 (O&M) -6- owner/driver of the offending vehicle and to get the driving licence verified, the claim petition was fixed for rebuttal evidence, if any and arguments. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the opportunity may be allowed to the insurance company to get driving licence verified and report as to whether there was any breach of terms and conditions to insurance policy. I find merits in the submission of learned counsel for the appellant. The case is remitted to the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sirsa with direction to afford opportunity to insurer of the offending vehicle to get driving licence verified and to produce evidence, if required. The owner/driver and the claimant may also be allowed to rebut evidence produced by insurance company, if so deemed fit by the Tribunal. After recording evidence Tribunal will submit report as to whether the driving licence produced by owner/driver of the offending vehicle was valid one. Parties are directed to appear before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sirsa on 28.05.2018. Report of the Tribunal be awaited for 26.11.2018. Amount of compensation, if deposited, as per order dated 15.05.2012 be paid to the claimants without any surety.” 13. In pursuance to the aforesaid order, learned Tribunal had submitted its report dated 01.09.2018 before this Court, the relevant extract of which reads as under:- “5. I have heard learned counsel for parties and perused case file carefully. 6. Driving licence Ex.RB (Ex.R6) is in the name of Prem Kumar son of Shri Pyare Lal, resident of villae Dhukra. It was valid w.e.f. 25.08.2008 to 24.08.2011 and renewed from DINESH 2026.07.23 17:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-7261-2011 (O&M) -7- 25.08.2011 to 24.08.2014. Accident took place on 26.01.2010. There is no evidence to the contrary. Counsel for insurance company respondent No.2 himself has relied upon it and tendered it as Ex.RB. So, there is not dispute over DL of respondent No.1. It is therefore held that Ex.RB (Ex.R6) driving licence produced by Prem Kumar (owner and driver) was valid on the date of accident that is 26.01.2010.” 14. A bare perusal of the above extracted report would clearly indicate that the driving licence of respondent No.3-Prem Kumar produced before the Court was valid on the date of accident i.e. 26.01.2010. 15. Learned counsel for the appellant-insurance company has failed to show any material to the contrary, which may enable this Court to hold that the driving licence of respondent No.3-Prem Kumar was not valid or fake on the date of accident. 16. In view of the above, the first contention raised on behalf of the appellant-insurance company is found to be without any merit and the same is accordingly rejected. 16.1. As regards the second contention of the appellant, that the compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal is on the higher side; suffice it to say that the learned Tribunal after considering the evidence available on record, came to the conclusion that the earning capacity of deceased Arjan Dass is taken as Rs.4000/- per month i.e. equivalent to a casual labourer and deducted 1/3rd amount on account of personal expenses. Further, the learned Tribunal while considering the age of the deceased Arjan Dass as 45 years (as per post mortem report), accordingly while relying upon a judgment DINESH 2026.07.23 17:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-7261-2011 (O&M) -8- Sarla Verma and others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another, 2009 ACJ 1298, a multiplier of 14 was adopted and amount of dependency was calculated as Rs.4,53,600/-. Besides the aforesaid amount, learned Tribunal granted a sum of Rs.20,000/- on account of loss of consortium, love and affection, mental pain and agony, alongwith a sum of Rs.10,000/- on account of funeral expenses and transportation etc. Accordingly, total compensation of Rs.4,83,600/- has been awarded. 17. During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the appellant- insurance company has failed to show that the findings returned by the learned Tribunal are either illegal or perverse or based upon any mis- appreciation or mis-reading of material evidence, so as to call for any interference by this Court. By no stretch of imagination, it can be concluded that the compensation awarded by learned Tribunal, is on the higher side. Accordingly, the second submission raised on behalf of the appellant- insurance company is also devoid of any merit and the same is rejected. 18. Keeping in view the above discussion, I see no merit in this appeal and the same is accordingly, dismissed. 19. All the pending application(s), if any, shall also stand closed. (HARSH BUNGER) 14.07.2026 JUDGE dinesh Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether reportable: Yes/No DINESH 2026.07.23 17:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document