FAO-912-2017 (O&M) & connected matters -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH (1) FAO-912-2017 (O&M) NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. ......Appellant Vs. GURDEEP KAUR AND ORS. ......Respondents (2) FAO-913-2017 (O&M)


 
      JASPAL SINGH AND ANR. ......Respondents (3) FAO-914-2017 (O&M) NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. ......Appellant Vs. SANNO BIBI AND ANR. ......Respondents (4) FAO-915-2017 (O&M) NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. ......Appellant Vs. AMARJIT KAUR AND ORS. ......Respondents (5) FAO-916-2017 (O&M) NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. ......Appellant Vs. SANTOSH KUMARI AND ORS. ......Respondents (6) FAO-917-2017 (O&M) NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. ......Appellant Vs. KASHMIR SINGH AND ORS. ......Respondents MOHD AYUB 2026.03.16 14:44 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. FAO-912-2017 (O&M) & connected matters -2- (7) FAO-918-2017 (O&M)


 
      SMT. SUKHWANT KAUR AND ANR. ......Respondents (8) FAO-919-2017 (O&M) NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. ......Appellant Vs. JANGIR SINGH (DECEASED) THROUGH HIS LRS. AND ORS. ......Respondents (9) FAO-920-2017 (O&M) NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. ......Appellant Vs. BIMLA RANI AND ORS. .....Respondents (10) FAO-921-2017 (O&M)


 
      HARNEK SINGH AND ANR. ......Respondents (11) FAO-922-2017 (O&M) NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. ......Appellant Vs. DES SINGH AND ORS. ......Respondents (12) FAO-923-2017 (O&M)


 
      SONA SINGH AND ANR. ......Respondents MOHD AYUB 2026.03.16 14:44 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. FAO-912-2017 (O&M) & connected matters -3- (13) FAO-4918-2017 (O&M)  
     GURMEET SINGH AND ANR. ......Respondents Reserved on: 06.03.2026 Pronounced on : 09.03.2026 Uploaded on: 16.03.2026 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
        !" !# !$ !% !& !' !( !  ") "! "#")!'*   +
"  $ !(")!'*
,
- ./    0. 1 +
!$   !" !' ")")!'*   0. 1 +
!  !$")!'*   0. 1 +
!#  !% ! ")!'*   0. 1 +
!%  !&")!'*   0. 1 +
!2"  """)!'*
,
3

-   ,


      +
!%  "!")!'*   $ !(")!'
4+
% 56 *   !" !' ")")!'*
4+
" 56 *  !$")!'*
+  +
!  !# !( "#")!'*
4+
" 56 *   !# !( "#")!'*
4+
$ 56 *   !% ! ")!'*
4+
& 56 *  !&")!'*
+  +
&2'  "!")!'*
MOHD AYUB 2026.03.16 14:44 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. FAO-912-2017 (O&M) & connected matters -4- 4+
( 56 *  "!")!'*
4+
# 56 *  """)!'*
 4+
! 56 * $ !(")!'*
**** SUDEEPTI SHARMA J. 1. Since in all the above mentioned appeals, Insurance Company has challenged award dated 19.07.2016 on the ground that no fitness certificate was produced by respondent-Gurmeet Singh (owner/driver of the offending vehicle) to prove that offending vehicle was fit to drive on the road, therefore, all the appeals are decided vide this common judgment. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE 2. - he case are that on 13.03.2015, at about 7.30 AM, deceased Diyal Singh was going from village Chhanga Rai Uttar to village Kahna Dhesian along with some other persons namely Bhagwanti, Durga Bibi, Santo Bibi, Desh Singh, Harmesh Singh, Sona Singh, Joginder Singh, Bishamber Singh, Jarnail Singh, Jaspal Singh, Santosh Kumari and Amarjeet Kaur in a Land Cruiser, which was being driven by Sonu at slow speed and on the left side of the road. After crossing village Alfuke, when they had gone little ahead towards Ferozepur, the offending truck came at fast speed from the opposite direction and while coming on the wrong side of the road, it struck against the Land Cruiser. As a result of this accident, all the occupants of the Land Cruiser received serious injuries. They all were shifted to the hospital. Bhagwanti, Kartaro Bibi, Durga Bibi, Santo Bibi, Desh Singh, Dayal Singh, Bishamber Singh, Harmesh Singh and Surjit Singh @ Babbu died in this accident. It is specifically pleaded that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of respondent No.1, who was driving the offending truck at that time. MOHD AYUB 2026.03.16 14:44 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. FAO-912-2017 (O&M) & connected matters -5- 3. Upon notice of the claim petition, respondents therein appeared and contested the claim petition by filing separate written statement denying the factum of accident/compensation. 4. From the pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal framed the following issues:- “1.Whether Diyal Singh son of Khan Singh had died on account of injuries sustained by him in a motor vehicular accident which took place on 13.03.2015 at about 7.30 AM in the area of village Alfuke District Ferozepur, due to rash and negligent driving of Truck bearing registration No. RJ 07 G 5736 by respondent No.1 ?OPP 2.Whether the claimants are entitled to the compensation, if so, to what extent and from whom?OPP 3.Whether the petition is not maintainable ?OPR 4.Whether the respondent No.1 was not having valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident ?OPR2. 5.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/respondents. However, the appellant/  was held liable to pay compensation. Hence, the present appeals.  


   7. Learned counsel appearing for the insurance company submits that the respondent–owner of the offending vehicle failed to place on record any valid fitness certificate to establish that the vehicle was fit to be driven on the road. It is contended that the absence of fitness certificate amounts to a breach of the terms MOHD AYUB 2026.03.16 14:44 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. FAO-912-2017 (O&M) & connected matters -6- and conditions of the insurance policy. Learned counsel further submits that while adjudicating the claim petition, learned Tribunal has completely overlooked this material aspect in the impugned award and has nevertheless held insurance company liable to pay the compensation. On this basis, he prays that the present appeal be allowed. 8. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent–claimant argues that the insurance company has failed to lead any cogent evidence to establish the alleged breach of the terms of the insurance policy. He further contends that no evidence has been adduced by the appellant-insurance company to prove that the offending vehicle did not possess valid fitness certificate at the relevant time. Learned counsel further submits that there is no specific condition in the insurance policy (Ex. R-4) requiring the existence of a fitness certificate, and this aspect has duly been taken note of by the learned Claims Tribunal in the impugned award. It is further argued that it is a settled position of law that the mere absence of fitness certificate, by itself, does not absolve the insurance company of its liability to indemnify the insured and pay compensation to the claimant. On these grounds, he prays that the present appeal be dismissed. 9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the whole record of this case with their able assistance. 10. Before proceeding further it is apposite to reproduce the relevant portion of the award. The relevant portion is reproduced as under:-

                   !" !#"$%! " &'  &   ()* MOHD AYUB 2026.03.16 14:44 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. FAO-912-2017 (O&M) & connected matters -7-                +      ,!-."%/$% 0,! 1 233 "!,*      !4 &   3   56!3&*      !7    3#* !8  6  *       96  !: *     !:    *   4   !  +                      ! +    (:-56!3*       !+              ! !  /       ,! *            *  6-!7             ; !  7*       6  * (:- ,!#"* !" !#"$*3  <8*   "=9&> %> ?>=#%:34     !7                 *       ! #!+       MOHD AYUB 2026.03.16 14:44 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. FAO-912-2017 (O&M) & connected matters -8- (:-56!3*         < 4 !: *      (:-*              <4 !:*    (:-*        *            <4 ! !  +               (:-6  *(:-  !:  *               (:-        6      3!  &      3          (:-!'*   /    ,!      (:-           * *  (:-    *     !&* *(:- 6 *    ! =!:       >       ! +  6   * *          ! $!:    *(:-  * 6 !: *     ;   MOHD AYUB 2026.03.16 14:44 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. FAO-912-2017 (O&M) & connected matters -9- 6         !  4   &    *   * 6  3#* *     *96      !:                          ! :'&4+*        !8 *  +                    *                  *   !  : *  *                   !" !#"$%! "&'   & *     !+      !!+2  : 4@!'@ 2!& A4  B$?#$ #""0* #& *#""%& @!'8  A#"#B=44$$#   !&  *        !C 11. A perusal of the impugned award reveals that appeal preferred by the insurance company rests essentially on solitary ground that learned Tribunal ought to have granted recovery rights to the appellant-insurance company on the premise that the offending vehicle did not possess a valid fitness certificate at the time of the accident. However, the aforesaid contention does not merit acceptance. MOHD AYUB 2026.03.16 14:44 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. FAO-912-2017 (O&M) & connected matters -10- 12. At the outset, reference may be made to Section 149(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, which enumerates limited statutory defences available to appellant-insurance company for avoiding its liability to indemnify the insured. 13. It would be apposite to reproduce Section 149(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, which is reproduced as under:-
                       A!B66666666 A#B,   9  AB  *         4* *4 +      *   6    D              * EF AB      *     * EF A B  6    F AB *           * AB   * AB       *      * AB     9              D MOHD AYUB 2026.03.16 14:44 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. FAO-912-2017 (O&M) & connected matters -11- A B  6        *  ;                           ;   D A B  6         *  *    D AB      9           !C 14. A careful reading of the above provision indicates that the absence of fitness certificate does not fall within the category of defences expressly available to the insurance company under the statute. 15. It is equally well settled that in order to avoid its liability under the insurance policy, the appellant-insurance company must not only plead but also prove that there has been a willful breach of the terms and conditions of the policy on the part of the insured. The burden lies squarely upon the appellant-insurance company to establish that the insured was guilty of negligence and had failed to exercise reasonable care in complying with the conditions of the policy relating to the use of the vehicle. In other words, the insurance company must not merely raise a defence but must also substantiate the alleged breach on the part of the owner of the vehicle by leading cogent evidence. 16. In the present case, the insurance company–appellant has failed to discharge the aforesaid burden. Neither any witness has been examined nor any documentary evidence has been adduced to substantiate the plea that the offending vehicle did not have a valid fitness certificate at the relevant time or that the MOHD AYUB 2026.03.16 14:44 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. FAO-912-2017 (O&M) & connected matters -12- owner had committed any willful breach of the terms of the insurance policy. In the absence of such proof, the contention raised on behalf of the appellant- insurance company cannot be sustained. 17. Even otherwise, assuming for the sake of argument that the offending vehicle did not have a valid fitness certificate, such a circumstance, by itself, would not constitute valid defence within the meaning of Section 149(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 so as to absolve the appellant-insurance company of its liability to satisfy the award passed in favour of the claimant. 18. It is also pertinent to note that a Coordinate Bench of this Court in Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Sangeeta (Punjab and Haryana), Law Finder Doc Id No. 2559483, has categorically held that the absence of fitness certificate is not a defence available to the appellant-insurance company under Section 149(2) of the Act of 1988 and that the insurance company cannot avoid its liability on that ground. The relevant extract of the said judgment reads as under: 7 !:      !  2            : 4*            !  &       * :4                  !  + :4 2  +4*&,A' B**        !:       *     *    "!"0!#"0  !+          :  4          MOHD AYUB 2026.03.16 14:44 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. FAO-912-2017 (O&M) & connected matters -13-               =GA#B &G??*    : 4**!8 19. In view of the above discussion, this Court finds no infirmity in the conclusion drawn by the learned Claims Tribunal holding appellant-insurance company liable to pay the awarded compensation. Consequently, the findings recorded by the Tribunal on this aspect do not call for any interference by this Court. 20. Consequently, present appeals stand dismissed being devoid of any merit. 21. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. 09.03.2026 (SUDEEPTI SHARMA) Saahil JUDGE  >9 E      EH>, MOHD AYUB 2026.03.16 14:44 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment.