FAO-4789-2025 (O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 120 The Oriental Insurance Company Limited Smt. Rooba @ Rubina CORAM : HON'BLE MR Present: Mr. for the appellant. *** AMARINDER SINGH GREWAL 1. The present appeal has been preferred by Company against the impugned award dated Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, compensation of Rs.16,98,904/ with interest @7% per annum from the date of claim petition till its realization. 2. In brief 27.05.2016, one Tahir (since deceased) was going to Manesar on his motor cycle bearing No.HR 9.30 PM, when he reached near village Dhulawat, a vehicle bearing registration No.HR-70B-6501 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘offending vehicle’) driver in a rash and neglig vehicle of the deceased Sunrise Hospital, Gurugram from where he was referred to Safdarjung Hospital owing to his critical condition but was decl preferred by the legal heirs of deceased 2025 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO Date of Decision: The Oriental Insurance Company Limited Versus Smt. Rooba @ Rubina and others HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMARINDER SINGH GREWAL Mr. Ram Avtar, Advocate for the appellant. *** AMARINDER SINGH GREWAL, J. (ORAL) The present appeal has been preferred by against the impugned award dated Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Nuh (for short ‘the compensation of Rs.16,98,904/- has been awarded to respondents No.1 to 6 alon with interest @7% per annum from the date of claim petition till its realization. In brief, the facts, as culled out from the grounds of appeal, 27.05.2016, one Tahir (since deceased) was going to Manesar on his motor cycle bearing No.HR-52C-4255 on left side of the road at a moderate speed and at about 9.30 PM, when he reached near village Dhulawat, a vehicle bearing registration 6501 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘offending vehicle’) driver in a rash and negligent manner, came from wrong side and hit against the vehicle of the deceased-Tahir. After the accident, the deceased was taken to the Sunrise Hospital, Gurugram from where he was referred to Safdarjung Hospital owing to his critical condition but was declared brought dead. preferred by the legal heirs of deceased-Tahir, the learned Tribunal has awarded a IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO-4789-2025 (O&M) Date of Decision:06.08.2025 ... Appellant ... Respondent AMARINDER SINGH GREWAL , J. (ORAL) The present appeal has been preferred by the appellant-Insurance against the impugned award dated 17.03.2025 passed by the learned (for short ‘the learned Tribunal’) whereby a has been awarded to respondents No.1 to 6 alon with interest @7% per annum from the date of claim petition till its realization. as culled out from the grounds of appeal, are that 27.05.2016, one Tahir (since deceased) was going to Manesar on his motor cycle 4255 on left side of the road at a moderate speed and at about 9.30 PM, when he reached near village Dhulawat, a vehicle bearing registration 6501 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘offending vehicle’) driven by its came from wrong side and hit against the Tahir. After the accident, the deceased was taken to the Sunrise Hospital, Gurugram from where he was referred to Safdarjung Hospital ared brought dead. In the claim petition Tahir, the learned Tribunal has awarded a IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Appellant ... Respondents Insurance passed by the learned whereby a has been awarded to respondents No.1 to 6 along with interest @7% per annum from the date of claim petition till its realization. are that on 27.05.2016, one Tahir (since deceased) was going to Manesar on his motor cycle 4255 on left side of the road at a moderate speed and at about 9.30 PM, when he reached near village Dhulawat, a vehicle bearing registration driven by its came from wrong side and hit against the Tahir. After the accident, the deceased was taken to the Sunrise Hospital, Gurugram from where he was referred to Safdarjung Hospital In the claim petition Tahir, the learned Tribunal has awarded a PANKAJ KUMAR 2025.08.08 11:07 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh FAO-4789-2025 (O&M) compensation of Rs. of institution of the claim petition till realizatio challenge in the present appeal. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that involvement of the offending vehicle in the alleged accident has not been established beyond reasonable doubt. It is further submitted that the FIR registered qua alleged accident does not find mention the re involved in the said accident as well as name of the driver. got registered at the behest of PW2 FIR, did not mention the registration number names of owner and driver of the said vehicle. was got recorded by the police to get false compensation from the appellant submitted that before the learned Tribunal and they proceeded respondents-claimant company. It is also submitted that even respondents-claimants after a gap of five years from the date of accident and thus, they were not entitled for any compen 4. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the paper book with his able assistance. 5. Admittedly, name of the driver was not mentioned by PW while registering FIR, which was got registered next day of the accident i.e. 28.05.2016. However, on 01.06.2016, a supplementary statement of PW recorded wherein registration number of the offending vehicle was mentioned i.e. 2025 (O&M) -2- compensation of Rs.16,98,904/- along with interest @7% per annum from the date of institution of the claim petition till realizatio challenge in the present appeal. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that involvement of the offending vehicle in the alleged accident has not been established beyond reasonable doubt. It is further submitted that the FIR registered qua alleged does not find mention the registration number of the vehicle alleged to be involved in the said accident as well as name of the driver. at the behest of PW2-Aabid, who at the time of registration of the FIR, did not mention the registration number names of owner and driver of the said vehicle. was got recorded by the police on 01.06.2016 involving the offending vehicle to get false compensation from the appellant submitted that even the owner and driver of the offending vehicle did not appear before the learned Tribunal and they proceeded claimants to get the compensation from the appellant company. It is also submitted that even the claim petition was preferred by the claimants after a gap of five years from the date of accident and thus, they were not entitled for any compensation. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the paper book with his able assistance. Admittedly, name of the driver was not mentioned by PW while registering FIR, which was got registered next day of the accident i.e. 28.05.2016. However, on 01.06.2016, a supplementary statement of PW recorded wherein registration number of the offending vehicle was mentioned i.e. along with interest @7% per annum from the date of institution of the claim petition till realization, which is subject matter of Learned counsel for the appellant submits that involvement of the offending vehicle in the alleged accident has not been established beyond reasonable doubt. It is further submitted that the FIR registered qua alleged gistration number of the vehicle alleged to be involved in the said accident as well as name of the driver. Further, the FIR was , who at the time of registration of the of the offending vehicle as well as names of owner and driver of the said vehicle. Rather, a supplementary statement on 01.06.2016 involving the offending vehicle to get false compensation from the appellant-insurance company. It is further even the owner and driver of the offending vehicle did not appear before the learned Tribunal and they proceeded ex parte simply to help the to get the compensation from the appellant-insurance the claim petition was preferred by the claimants after a gap of five years from the date of accident and thus, I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the paper Admittedly, name of the driver was not mentioned by PW-2/Aabid while registering FIR, which was got registered next day of the accident i.e. 28.05.2016. However, on 01.06.2016, a supplementary statement of PW-2 was got recorded wherein registration number of the offending vehicle was mentioned i.e. along with interest @7% per annum from the date n, which is subject matter of Learned counsel for the appellant submits that involvement of the offending vehicle in the alleged accident has not been established beyond reasonable doubt. It is further submitted that the FIR registered qua alleged gistration number of the vehicle alleged to be Further, the FIR was , who at the time of registration of the as well as Rather, a supplementary statement on 01.06.2016 involving the offending vehicle just company. It is further even the owner and driver of the offending vehicle did not appear simply to help the insurance the claim petition was preferred by the claimants after a gap of five years from the date of accident and thus, I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the paper 2/Aabid while registering FIR, which was got registered next day of the accident i.e. on 2 was got recorded wherein registration number of the offending vehicle was mentioned i.e. PANKAJ KUMAR 2025.08.08 11:07 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh FAO-4789-2025 (O&M) HR-70B-6501, which was held responsible for causing accident in which Tahir expired. The co accident, which made basis of registration of the FIR wherein the colour and description of the offending vehicle i.e. mentioned. Furthermore, involvement of the accident was duly proved in the police investigation and was submitted by the police under Section 173 Cr.P.C of registration number of the vehicle and immaterial because the fact remains that Tahir died in a roadside accident, which was duly established by the claimant by examining eye witnesses PW PW-3 Atti Mohd. the counsel appearing for the insurance company before the learned Tribunal and their testimonies remained The onus to prove that the offending vehicle was not involved in the alleged accident was upon the appellant said onus by leading cogent evidence. Rat appellant-insurance to lead its evidence but no evidence was led and thus, evidence was closed by order on 10.05.2024. counsel for the appellant roped in the accident by the respondents insurance, has no force. Filing of claim petition after a gap of five years from the date of accident is also immaterial because no such issue was raise learned Tribunal that the claim petition was filed at such a belated stage. 2025 (O&M) -3- , which was held responsible for causing accident in which Tahir The complaint Ex.P2 was given without any delay on the next day of accident, which made basis of registration of the FIR wherein the colour and description of the offending vehicle i.e. white colour swift car mentioned. Furthermore, involvement of the accident was duly proved in the police investigation and was submitted by the police under Section 173 Cr.P.C of registration number of the vehicle and name of driver by immaterial because the fact remains that Tahir died in a roadside accident, which was duly established by the claimant by examining eye witnesses PW 3 Atti Mohd. These witnesses were duly subjected to cross counsel appearing for the insurance company before the learned Tribunal and their testimonies remained unshattered and found reliable by the learned Tribunal. The onus to prove that the offending vehicle was not involved in the alleged accident was upon the appellant-insurance company but it failed to discharge the said onus by leading cogent evidence. Rather, due opportunities were given to the insurance to lead its evidence but no evidence was led and thus, evidence was closed by order on 10.05.2024. counsel for the appellant-insurance company that roped in the accident by the respondents to get compensation from the appellant has no force. Filing of claim petition after a gap of five years from the date of accident is also immaterial because no such issue was raise learned Tribunal that the claim petition was filed at such a belated stage. , which was held responsible for causing accident in which Tahir mplaint Ex.P2 was given without any delay on the next day of accident, which made basis of registration of the FIR wherein the colour and white colour swift car were duly mentioned. Furthermore, involvement of the offending vehicle in the alleged accident was duly proved in the police investigation and accordingly, final report was submitted by the police under Section 173 Cr.P.C, therefore, non-mentioning name of driver by PW-2 Aabid is immaterial because the fact remains that Tahir died in a roadside accident, which was duly established by the claimant by examining eye witnesses PW-2 Aabid and These witnesses were duly subjected to cross-examination by counsel appearing for the insurance company before the learned Tribunal and unshattered and found reliable by the learned Tribunal. The onus to prove that the offending vehicle was not involved in the alleged insurance company but it failed to discharge the her, due opportunities were given to the insurance to lead its evidence but no evidence was led and thus, evidence was closed by order on 10.05.2024. Therefore, argument of learned insurance company that the offending vehicle was falsely to get compensation from the appellant has no force. Filing of claim petition after a gap of five years from the date of accident is also immaterial because no such issue was raised before the learned Tribunal that the claim petition was filed at such a belated stage. , which was held responsible for causing accident in which Tahir mplaint Ex.P2 was given without any delay on the next day of accident, which made basis of registration of the FIR wherein the colour and duly offending vehicle in the alleged accordingly, final report mentioning 2 Aabid is immaterial because the fact remains that Tahir died in a roadside accident, which 2 Aabid and examination by counsel appearing for the insurance company before the learned Tribunal and unshattered and found reliable by the learned Tribunal. The onus to prove that the offending vehicle was not involved in the alleged insurance company but it failed to discharge the her, due opportunities were given to the insurance to lead its evidence but no evidence was led and thus, its Therefore, argument of learned ng vehicle was falsely to get compensation from the appellant- has no force. Filing of claim petition after a gap of five years from the d before the PANKAJ KUMAR 2025.08.08 11:07 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh FAO-4789-2025 (O&M) 6. As an upshot of above, this Court finds no illegality and infirmity in the award passed by the learned Tribunal and consequently, the instant appeal stands dismissed. 7. Misc. Application(s), pending if any, also stands dismissed. August 06, 2025 Pankaj* 2025 (O&M) -4- As an upshot of above, this Court finds no illegality and infirmity in the award passed by the learned Tribunal and consequently, the instant appeal stands Misc. Application(s), pending if any, also stands dismissed. (AMARINDER SINGH GREWAL , 2025 Whether speaking/reasoned Whether reportable As an upshot of above, this Court finds no illegality and infirmity in the award passed by the learned Tribunal and consequently, the instant appeal stands Misc. Application(s), pending if any, also stands dismissed. AMARINDER SINGH GREWAL JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No : Yes/No As an upshot of above, this Court finds no illegality and infirmity in the award passed by the learned Tribunal and consequently, the instant appeal stands AMARINDER SINGH GREWAL) PANKAJ KUMAR 2025.08.08 11:07 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh