2025:HHC:26229 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA FAO No.117 of 2019 Reserved on: 28.07.2025 Date of Decision: 05.08.2025 New India Assurance Company Ltd. ...Appellant Versus Mohinder Pal & others ...Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Satyen Vaidya, Judge Whether approved for reporting? No For the appellant: Mr. Ashwani Sharma, Senior Advocate with Ms. Nisha Nalot, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. R.M. Bisht, Advocate, for respondent No.1. Mr. Surinder Saklani, Advocate, for respondents No.2 and 3. Satyen Vaidya, Judge This appeal has been filed against the award dated 12.10.2018, passed by Learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Hamirpur, H.P. in MAC Petition No.98 of 2016 (Regd.No. 189/2016), whereby respondent No.1, herein, has been awarded compensation of Rs.8,56,000/- along with interest at the rate of 7% per annum from the date of petition till the deposit of amount. 2. Respondent No.1 (hereinafter referred to as “claimant”) filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, “the Act”) before the Motor Accident Claims 2 2025:HHC:26229 Tribunal, Hamirpur with the allegation that on 10.07.2016 he was travelling on a motorcycle with one Tirlochan Singh on the pillion from Rewalsar to Hoshiarpur. When they reached at Village Sulagwan in District Hamirpur at about 9:20 AM, car bearing No. HP-39-6788 came from the opposite side and hit the motorcycle causing injuries to the claimant. 3. The car was stated to be driven by respondent No.2 (hereinafter referred to as “driver”) and owned by respondent No.3 (hereinafter referred to as “owner”). The car was also stated to be under insurance with the appellant (hereinafter referred as “insurer”). 4. The cause of accident was attributed to the rash and negligent driving of driver. 5. The owner and driver contested the petition by alleging that the petitioner himself was rash and negligent and had struck his Motorcycle against the stationary car. 6. The insurer by its separate reply raised various preliminary objections as to maintainability of the petition, breach of terms and conditions of the Policy more particularly, the absence of valid and effective driving license of the driver. The insurer also alleged that the petitioner himself was responsible for the accident and hence, was not entitled for any compensation. 7. Learned Tribunal framed the following issues: 3 2025:HHC:26229 “1. Whether the petitioner has sustained injuries on account of rash and negligent driving of respondent No.1 involving vehicle Car No.HP-39- 6788 on 10.07.2016 at 9.20 PM at Sulgwan near Aryan Traders, as alleged? OPP. 2. Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation as claimed, if so, from whom? OPP. 3. Whether the petition is not maintainable as no accident has taken place on account of rash and negligent driving of respondent No.1, as alleged? OPR-1 & 2. 4. Whether the vehicle in question was being driven without effective driving licence and in violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy? OPR-3 5. Relief.” 7. Issues No.1 and 2 were decided in affirmative, whereas other issues were decided in negative. The petition was accordingly allowed and the claimant has been awarded compensation, as noticed above. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record carefully. 9. Mr. Ashwani Sharma, learned Senior Advocate, representing the insurer, has laid challenge to impugned award on two grounds firstly, that the learned Tribunal had misread and mis- appreciated the evidence while deciding issues No.1 and 3 and secondly, the quantum of compensation assessed by learned Tribunal was excessive and without any legal evidence on record. 4 2025:HHC:26229 9. Learned Senior Advocate referred to the statements of the witnesses i.e. PW-1 Mohinder Pal (claimant), RW-1 Nawang Tenpa (driver) and RW-2 Lobsang, another occupant of the car at the time of accident. He urged that the version of claimant was without corroboration so much so that even the person named Tirlochan Singh, pillion rider of the Motorcycle, was not produced in the witness box. He would further contend that learned Tribunal has fallen in grave error in holding that the negligence was not required to be proved under Section 163-A of the Act. He urged that learned Tribunal had misconstrued the claim petition to be one under Section 163-A of the Act. 10. No doubt that the finding of learned Tribunal to the extent that negligence was not required to be proved is liable to be set aside. The proof of negligence is sine qua non for succeeding in a claim under Section 166 of the Act. 11. Admittedly, both the sides had made counter allegation of rashness and negligence against each other. Issues No.1 and 3 were accordingly struck. However, learned Tribunal has failed to return any finding as to by whose rash and negligent driving, the accident had taken place. In absence of any finding on such material issues, learned Tribunal has not only wrongly proceeded to hold owner and driver liable to compensate the claimant the liability 5 2025:HHC:26229 of the insurer to indemnify the owner has also been wrongly held to exist. 12. Since, learned Tribunal has failed to return any finding as to rashness and negligence on the part of driver of the car, the findings on issues No.1 and 3 cannot be sustained. Resultantly, the findings on issues No.2 and 4 are also liable to be set aside as these also cannot be sustained in absence of findings on Issues numbers 1 and 3. 13. In light of above discussion, the impugned Award dated 12.10.2018, passed by Learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Hamirpur, H.P. in MAC Petition No.98 of 2016 (Regd. 189/2016) is set aside. The matter is remanded back to the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Hamirpur to decide the same afresh, strictly in accordance with law. 14. The appeal is accordingly disposed of with direction to the parties to appear before the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Hamirpur on 8.9.2025. 15. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. 16. Record be sent back, forthwith. (Satyen Vaidya) Judge August 05, 2025 (vt)