FAO-5062-2023 141 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED KIRANPAL KAUR SHERGILL AND ORS CORAM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE Present: HARPREET KAUR JEEWAN, J. (Oral) 1. impugning the order dated 06.04.2023 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Rupnagar Rs.10,94,036/ claimants on account of death of Pritpal Singh Shergill in a motor vehicle accident. 2. Pritpal Singh (deceased) was coming to his village Jhar Sahib (Choharpur) from Ludhiana on a tract Singh cousin of deceased was driving the tractor trolley with proper care and caution. When they were on the road leading from Neelon bridge to Ropar 2023 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED Versus KIRANPAL KAUR SHERGILL AND ORS CORAM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE HARPREET KAUR JEEWAN Mr. Harsh Aggarwal, Advocate, Mr. Tarun Jindal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Vipul Sharma, Advocate for Mr. Ashwani Arora, Advocate for respondent Nos.1 to 3. HARPREET KAUR JEEWAN, J. (Oral) The present appeal has been filed by the Insurance Company impugning the order dated 06.04.2023 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Rupnagar (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Tribunal’) Rs.10,94,036/- has been awarded as compensation to the r claimants on account of death of Pritpal Singh Shergill in a motor vehicle As per the facts in brief, on 06.02.2020 at about 06:00 PM Pritpal Singh (deceased) was coming to his village Jhar Sahib (Choharpur) from Ludhiana on a tractor trolley along with Amarjeet Singh. Kulwinder Singh cousin of deceased was driving the tractor trolley with proper care and caution. When they were on the road leading from Neelon bridge to Ropar IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO-5062-2023 (O&M) Date of decision: 13.07.2026 ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED ...Petitioner KIRANPAL KAUR SHERGILL AND ORS ...Respondents HARPREET KAUR JEEWAN , Vipul Sharma, Advocate for The present appeal has been filed by the Insurance Company impugning the order dated 06.04.2023 passed by Motor Accident Claims (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Tribunal’), whereby has been awarded as compensation to the respondent- claimants on account of death of Pritpal Singh Shergill in a motor vehicle As per the facts in brief, on 06.02.2020 at about 06:00 PM Pritpal Singh (deceased) was coming to his village Jhar Sahib (Choharpur) or trolley along with Amarjeet Singh. Kulwinder Singh cousin of deceased was driving the tractor trolley with proper care and caution. When they were on the road leading from Neelon bridge to Ropar, a (O&M) 6 ...Petitioner s The present appeal has been filed by the Insurance Company impugning the order dated 06.04.2023 passed by Motor Accident Claims whereby - claimants on account of death of Pritpal Singh Shergill in a motor vehicle As per the facts in brief, on 06.02.2020 at about 06:00 PM Pritpal Singh (deceased) was coming to his village Jhar Sahib (Choharpur) or trolley along with Amarjeet Singh. Kulwinder Singh cousin of deceased was driving the tractor trolley with proper care and a GURPREET 2026.07.20 11:04 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document. FAO-5062-2023 truck bearing registration No.HP speed and in a rash and negligent manner and struck against the tractor trolley. An FIR dated 07.02.2020 under Sections 279, 337, 304 registered in Police Station Machhiwara against respondent No.1 on the statement of Kulwinder S of accident and left behind his wife and two sons. It is alleged that deceased was earning Rs.20,000/ was also drawing pension of Rs.1674/ 3. 4. claimants, Is Issue No.4 against respondent No.3 and awarded No.5. 5. Company has preferred the present appeal. Insurance Company has filed an application under Order 41 Rule 27 read with Section 151 CPC for permission to produce additional documents i.e. the previous Insurance Policy (An (Annexure A 2023 (O&M) -2- truck bearing registration No.HP-12-d-6402 came from ba speed and in a rash and negligent manner and struck against the tractor trolley. An FIR dated 07.02.2020 under Sections 279, 337, 304 registered in Police Station Machhiwara against respondent No.1 on the statement of Kulwinder Singh. The deceased was 55 years of age at the date of accident and left behind his wife and two sons. It is alleged that deceased was earning Rs.20,000/- per month from agricultural and dairy farming; and was also drawing pension of Rs.1674/- per month. The following issues were framed by the Tribunal: i. Whether Pritpal Singh Shergill died in a motor vehicular accident occurring on account of rash and negligent driving of truck bearing No.HP12-D-6402 by respondent No.1? OPP ii. Whether the claimants are entitled to compensation for death of Pritpal Singh Shergill? If so to what extent and from whom? OPP iii. Whether the respondent No.1 was not holding legal and valid driving license at the time of accident, if so, its effect? OPR iv. Whether the respondent No.1 had committed breach of terms and conditions of the insurance policy, if so, its effect? OPR v. Relief. The Tribunal decided Issue No.1 , Issue No.3 in favour of claimant and respondent Nos.1 an Issue No.4 against respondent No.3 and in favour of respondent No.1 and 2 and awarded a sum of Rs.10,94,036/- in favour of claimants against Issue Aggrieved by the impugned Award, the appellant Company has preferred the present appeal. Insurance Company has filed an application under Order 41 Rule 27 read with Section 151 CPC for permission to produce additional documents i.e. the previous Insurance Policy (Annexure A (Annexure A-2 & A-5) and police complaint (Annexure A 6402 came from backside on a high speed and in a rash and negligent manner and struck against the tractor trolley. An FIR dated 07.02.2020 under Sections 279, 337, 304-A IPC was registered in Police Station Machhiwara against respondent No.1 on the The deceased was 55 years of age at the date of accident and left behind his wife and two sons. It is alleged that deceased per month from agricultural and dairy farming; and per month. following issues were framed by the Tribunal: Whether Pritpal Singh Shergill died in a motor vehicular accident occurring on account of rash and negligent driving of truck bearing 6402 by respondent No.1? OPP are entitled to compensation for death of Pritpal Singh Shergill? If so to what extent and from whom? OPP Whether the respondent No.1 was not holding legal and valid driving license at the time of accident, if so, its effect? OPR-3. respondent No.1 had committed breach of terms and conditions of the insurance policy, if so, its effect? OPR The Tribunal decided Issue No.1 & Issue No.2 in favour of the sue No.3 in favour of claimant and respondent Nos.1 and 2; in favour of respondent No.1 and 2 in favour of claimants against Issue Aggrieved by the impugned Award, the appellant-Insurance Company has preferred the present appeal. Along with the appeal, the Insurance Company has filed an application under Order 41 Rule 27 read with Section 151 CPC for permission to produce additional documents i.e. nexure A-1), Premium Registers 5) and police complaint (Annexure A-6). ckside on a high speed and in a rash and negligent manner and struck against the tractor A IPC was registered in Police Station Machhiwara against respondent No.1 on the The deceased was 55 years of age at the date of accident and left behind his wife and two sons. It is alleged that deceased per month from agricultural and dairy farming; and Whether Pritpal Singh Shergill died in a motor vehicular accident occurring on account of rash and negligent driving of truck bearing are entitled to compensation for death of Pritpal Whether the respondent No.1 was not holding legal and valid driving respondent No.1 had committed breach of terms and in favour of the ; in favour of respondent No.1 and 2 in favour of claimants against Issue Insurance Along with the appeal, the Insurance Company has filed an application under Order 41 Rule 27 read with Section 151 CPC for permission to produce additional documents i.e. 1), Premium Registers GURPREET 2026.07.20 11:04 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document. FAO-5062-2023 6. the material available on record. 7. that the insurance policy relied upon by respondent No.1 is forged and fabricated, as no premium was received and no such policy exists in its records. In support of its stand, the appellant has sought to place additional documents on record by way of an application under Order 8. a specific plea in the written statement that vehicle was never insured with the appellant (Annexure A to prove various documents including the insurance policy but by the time the said policy Annexure A already decided 9. Insurance Company the appellant as such it is in the interest of justice to provide an opportunity to the appellant t caused to the owner additional evidence in rebuttal. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Insurance Company Limited vs. RCR (Civil) 483, Insurance Company to resist the claim at the first instance of fraud because appellant company had at that stage no knowledge about the fraud claimed by the claimants. It is further observed that no Court or tribunal can 2023 (O&M) -3- I have heard learned counsel for the the material available on record. Learned counsel for the appellant that the insurance policy relied upon by respondent No.1 is forged and fabricated, as no premium was received and no such policy exists in its records. In support of its stand, the appellant has sought to place additional ts on record by way of an application under Order Learned counsel for the appellant further contends that there is a specific plea in the written statement that vehicle was never insured with the appellant-Insurance Company. Even an app (Annexure A-3) before the Tribunal for issuance of a direction to the owner to prove various documents including the insurance policy but by the time the said policy Annexure A-4 could be verified already decided by the Tribunal. Since the additional documents sought to be produced by the Insurance Company appears to have a prima facie the appellant as such it is in the interest of justice to provide an opportunity to the appellant to prove these documents as per law. No prejudice would be caused to the owner-driver as they would get an opportunity to lead additional evidence in rebuttal. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Insurance Company Limited vs. Rajendra Singh and Others RCR (Civil) 483, has held that it is unrealistic to expect the appellant Insurance Company to resist the claim at the first instance of fraud because appellant company had at that stage no knowledge about the fraud claimed by the claimants. It is further observed that no Court or tribunal can I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused he appellant-Insurance Company contends that the insurance policy relied upon by respondent No.1 is forged and fabricated, as no premium was received and no such policy exists in its records. In support of its stand, the appellant has sought to place additional ts on record by way of an application under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC. Learned counsel for the appellant further contends that there is a specific plea in the written statement that vehicle was never insured with Insurance Company. Even an application was moved 3) before the Tribunal for issuance of a direction to the owner to prove various documents including the insurance policy but by the time 4 could be verified, the claim petition was Since the additional documents sought to be produced by the prima facie bearing on the liability of the appellant as such it is in the interest of justice to provide an opportunity o prove these documents as per law. No prejudice would be driver as they would get an opportunity to lead additional evidence in rebuttal. The Hon’ble Apex Court in “United India Rajendra Singh and Others”, 2000(2) has held that it is unrealistic to expect the appellant- Insurance Company to resist the claim at the first instance of fraud because appellant company had at that stage no knowledge about the fraud allegedly claimed by the claimants. It is further observed that no Court or tribunal can and have perused Insurance Company contends that the insurance policy relied upon by respondent No.1 is forged and fabricated, as no premium was received and no such policy exists in its records. In support of its stand, the appellant has sought to place additional Learned counsel for the appellant further contends that there is a specific plea in the written statement that vehicle was never insured with lication was moved 3) before the Tribunal for issuance of a direction to the owner to prove various documents including the insurance policy but by the time he claim petition was Since the additional documents sought to be produced by the bearing on the liability of the appellant as such it is in the interest of justice to provide an opportunity o prove these documents as per law. No prejudice would be driver as they would get an opportunity to lead “United India 2000(2) - Insurance Company to resist the claim at the first instance of fraud because allegedly claimed by the claimants. It is further observed that no Court or tribunal can GURPREET 2026.07.20 11:04 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document. FAO-5062-2023 be regarded as powerless to recall its own order if it is convinced that the order was declared wrangled through fraud or misrepresentation of such a dimension as wou 10. 41 Rule 27 CPC is allowed. allowed. The impugned Award dated 06.04.2023 is set aside to the limited extent of the liability of the appellant remanded to the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Rupnagar, for a fresh decision Tribunal shall also record findings on the compensation? Due opportunity to all the parties shall be given. 11. the awarded appellant is not averse to pay compensation to the claimants but in case it is determined that there is no insurance policy in that eventuality the appellant may be granted right to recovery from respondent However, such Tribunal to the aforesaid issues. 12. 13. 13.07.2026 Gurpreet 2023 (O&M) -4- be regarded as powerless to recall its own order if it is convinced that the order was declared wrangled through fraud or misrepresentation of such a dimension as would affect the very basis of the claim. Accordingly, application No.CM Rule 27 CPC is allowed. Consequently, the present appeal is also The impugned Award dated 06.04.2023 is set aside to the limited he liability of the appellant-Insurance Company, and the matter is remanded to the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Rupnagar, for a fresh decision on Issues No.III and IV. After determining said issues, the Tribunal shall also record findings on the issue as to who is liable to pay compensation? Due opportunity to all the parties shall be given. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company has submitted that amount has already been depo is not averse to pay compensation to the claimants but in case it is ed that there is no insurance policy in that eventuality the appellant may be granted right to recovery from respondent such payment by the appellant is subject to the decision of the Tribunal to the aforesaid issues. All the parties shall appear before the Tribunal on 30.07.2026. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stan [HARPREET KAUR JEEWAN] Whether speaking/reasoned: Whether Reportable: be regarded as powerless to recall its own order if it is convinced that the order was declared wrangled through fraud or misrepresentation of such a ld affect the very basis of the claim. CM-17274-CII-2023 under Order Consequently, the present appeal is also The impugned Award dated 06.04.2023 is set aside to the limited Insurance Company, and the matter is remanded to the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Rupnagar, for a After determining said issues, the issue as to who is liable to pay compensation? Due opportunity to all the parties shall be given. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company has submitted that osited before the Tribunal. The is not averse to pay compensation to the claimants but in case it is ed that there is no insurance policy in that eventuality the appellant may be granted right to recovery from respondent-owner of the vehicle. by the appellant is subject to the decision of the All the parties shall appear before the Tribunal on 30.07.2026. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. [HARPREET KAUR JEEWAN] JUDGE Yes/No Yes/No be regarded as powerless to recall its own order if it is convinced that the order was declared wrangled through fraud or misrepresentation of such a 2023 under Order Consequently, the present appeal is also The impugned Award dated 06.04.2023 is set aside to the limited Insurance Company, and the matter is remanded to the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Rupnagar, for a After determining said issues, the issue as to who is liable to pay Learned counsel for the Insurance Company has submitted that e is not averse to pay compensation to the claimants but in case it is ed that there is no insurance policy in that eventuality the appellant owner of the vehicle. by the appellant is subject to the decision of the GURPREET 2026.07.20 11:04 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document.