IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** I. FAO-4774-2017 (O&M) NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. . . . . Appellants Vs. NEELAM DEVI AND ORS . . . . Respondents **** II. FAO-1450-2018 SURINDER PAL AND ANOTHER . . . . Appellants Vs. NEELAM DEVI AND ORS . . . . Respondents **** Reserved on:17.07.2026 Pronounced on: 21.07.2026 Pronounced Fully/Operative Part: Fully **** CORAM: HON’BLE MR JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA **** Present: - Ms. Swatantar Kapoor, Advocate for the appellant through VC in FAO-4774-2017 and for respondent No.4 in FAO-1450-2018. Mr. Praagbir Singh Dhindsa, Advocate for Mr. H.S. Dhindsa, Advocate for the appellant(s) in FAO-1450-2018 and for respondents No.4 and 5 in FAO-4774-2017. **** DEEPAK GUPTA, J. By this common judgment, this Court proposes to dispose of FAO- 4774-2017 filed by the insurer of the offending vehicle and FAO-1450-2018 preferred by its driver and owner, as both the appeals arise out of the common award dated 24.01.2017 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ludhiana (for short, "the Tribunal"). Vide the impugned award, compensation VIVEK PAHWA 2026.07.21 15:40 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-4774-2017 2026:PHHC:098258 FAO-1450-2018 of ₹15,71,000/- along with interest has been awarded in favour of the widow and minor children of deceased Santosh Paswan, who lost his life in a motor vehicular accident on 06.05.2016. 2. Briefly stated, on 06.05.2016, the deceased Santosh Paswan, along with Manjit Singh and two others, was travelling on a tractor bearing registration No. PBL-0721 to bring cattle feed from the fields situated at village Chak Sarwan Nath. The tractor was being driven by Manjit Singh, while the deceased was sitting on its left mudguard. When the tractor reached near Gill Sandhu Property Dealer on Chandigarh Road, a Tata Tipper bearing registration No. PB-10-FF-7445 (hereinafter referred to as "the offending vehicle"), allegedly being driven by respondent No.1 in a rash and negligent manner, struck the tractor-trolley from behind. Due to the impact, the deceased fell from the tractor and sustained fatal injuries. He was taken to Fortis Hospital, Ludhiana, where he was declared brought dead. Consequently, FIR No.44 dated 06.05.2016 was registered at Police Station Koom Kalan, District Ludhiana under Sections 279 and 304-A IPC against the driver of the offending vehicle. 3. The widow and two minor children of the deceased instituted a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 seeking compensation from the driver, owner and insurer of the offending vehicle. 4. While the driver and owner denied the allegations regarding the manner of the accident, they pleaded that the offending vehicle was duly insured and, therefore, any liability, if fastened, was required to be indemnified by the insurer. 5. The insurance company, besides disputing the involvement of the offending vehicle and the manner of the accident, also raised a defence that the driver was not holding a valid and effective driving licence to drive the offending vehicle and, thus, there was breach of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. VIVEK PAHWA 2026.07.21 15:40 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-4774-2017 2026:PHHC:098258 FAO-1450-2018 6. Upon appreciation of the evidence led by the parties, the Tribunal held that the accident had occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the offending tipper resulting in the death of Santosh Paswan. In the absence of proof regarding the income of the deceased, his monthly income was assessed notionally at ₹6,000/- and compensation of ₹15,71,000/- was awarded under various heads. While directing the insurer to satisfy the award, the Tribunal further held that the driver was authorised only to drive a Light Motor Vehicle (LMV) and not a Heavy Goods Vehicle and, consequently, granted recovery rights to the insurer against the driver and owner. 7. Aggrieved by the above award, the insurer, in FAO-4774-2017, seeks complete exoneration from its liability to satisfy the award by contending that the deceased himself contributed to the occurrence of the accident and, in any case, there was a breach of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy as the driver of the offending vehicle was allegedly not holding a valid and effective driving licence to drive a Heavy Goods Vehicle. 8. On the other hand, the driver and owner, by way of FAO-1450- 2018, have confined their challenge to that part of the award, whereby the Tribunal, while directing the insurer to satisfy the award in the first instance, granted it recovery rights against them on the aforesaid ground. 9. Since both the appeals arise out of the same award and involve common questions of fact and law, they are being decided together. 10. The first submission advanced on behalf of the insurer is that the deceased himself contributed to the accident as he was travelling on the mudguard of the tractor, which is not meant for carrying passengers. 11. The contention deserves to be rejected. Firstly, contributory negligence is a specific plea, which must be pleaded and proved by the party alleging it. Neither in the written statement filed by the insurer nor in the pleadings of the driver and owner was any foundation laid that the deceased had contributed to the occurrence by travelling on the mudguard of the VIVEK PAHWA 2026.07.21 15:40 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-4774-2017 2026:PHHC:098258 FAO-1450-2018 tractor. On the contrary, the insurance company primarily disputed the involvement of the offending vehicle itself and, in the alternative, sought to attribute negligence only to the driver of the tractor. No issue regarding contributory negligence of the deceased was either claimed or framed before the Tribunal. 12. Secondly, even otherwise, merely because the deceased was sitting on the mudguard of the tractor cannot, by itself, constitute contributory negligence unless a causal connection between such act and the occurrence of the accident is established. The evidence on record unequivocally proves that the offending tipper struck the tractor-trolley from behind. The collision was, therefore, the direct consequence of the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle. There is no material whatsoever to suggest that the position occupied by the deceased either caused or contributed to the impact or that the accident would have been avoided had he been seated elsewhere. 13. The settled principle is that negligence which merely aggravates the consequences of an accident is not synonymous with negligence contributing to the occurrence itself. Since the insurer has failed to establish any nexus between the act of the deceased and the cause of the accident, the plea of contributory negligence is liable to fail. 14. The finding recorded by the Tribunal that the accident occurred solely due to the rash and negligent driving of the offending tipper, therefore, calls for no interference and is accordingly affirmed. 15. Quantum of compensation : The award has not been challenged by the claimants by filing any appeal or cross-objections seeking enhancement. Equally, except for the question of liability, no ground has been urged by the insurer questioning the computation of compensation under the various heads. Consequently, the quantum of compensation determined by the Tribunal is affirmed. VIVEK PAHWA 2026.07.21 15:40 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-4774-2017 2026:PHHC:098258 FAO-1450-2018 16. Recovery rights granted to the insurer : The surviving controversy concerns the recovery rights granted by the Tribunal in favour of the insurer. The Tribunal proceeded on the premise that respondent No.1, the driver of the offending tipper, possessed only a licence to drive a Light Motor Vehicle (LMV) and was not duly authorised to drive a Heavy Goods Vehicle. Proceeding on this assumption, the Tribunal concluded that there was breach of the policy conditions and consequently granted recovery rights against the owner and driver. 17. The conclusion is, however, contrary to the documentary evidence available on record. Exhibit R-4, the driving licence produced before the Tribunal itself, clearly records that apart from authorization to drive a Light Motor Vehicle, the appellant-driver was also authorised to drive a Transport Vehicle. The transport vehicle endorsement remained valid from 22.07.2011 till 27.07.2017, which admittedly covers the date of accident i.e. 06.05.2016. 18. The appellants have further placed on record the verification issued by the Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Ludhiana (Annexure A- 3). The said verification not only certifies the genuineness of the licence but also specifically clarifies that the transport vehicle authorization included the category of ‘Heavy Goods Vehicle’. The verification has not been disputed by the insurer nor has any evidence been produced to contradict the same. 19. Once the licensing authority itself certifies that the driver was duly authorised to drive the category of vehicle involved in the accident, the very foundation on which recovery rights were granted disappears. The finding recorded by the Tribunal, therefore, suffers from a patent misreading of Exhibit R-4 and complete omission to consider its transport vehicle endorsement. Such a finding is clearly perverse, being contrary to the documentary evidence on record, and cannot be sustained. 20. There is, consequently, no breach of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy so as to entitle the insurer either to avoid its statutory liability or to recover the compensation from the insured. VIVEK PAHWA 2026.07.21 15:40 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-4774-2017 2026:PHHC:098258 FAO-1450-2018 21. Accordingly, the direction granting recovery rights to the insurer is set aside. The insurer shall remain jointly and severally liable, along with the driver and owner, to satisfy the award, without any right of recovery against them. 22. Consequently, the appeal filed by the insurance company being FAO-4774-2017 is hereby dismissed; whereas FAO-1450-2018 filed by the driver and owner of the offending vehicle is hereby allowed. The award of the Tribunal is modified accordingly. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. A photocopy of this order be placed on the file of connected case. (DEEPAK GUPTA) 21.07.2026 JUDGE Vivek Whether Speaking/reasoned Yes Whether reportable No Uploaded on: 21.07.2026 VIVEK PAHWA 2026.07.21 15:40 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document