IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** 127 FAO-5302-2025 (O&M) Date of Decision.:04.09.2025 Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. …..Appellant Vs. Sonia Bai and Others .….Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA Present:- Mr. Harsh Aggarwal, Advocate for the appellant. **** DEEPAK GUPTA, J. (ORAL) This is an appeal by the insurance company. 2. On account of death of Ashok son of Ra% Ram in a motor vehicular accident, his widow and two minor children filed claim pe%%on under Sec%on 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act against driver, owner and insurer of the offending vehicle. Learned MACT, Narnaul has awarded compensa%on of ₹51,02,690/- along with interest vide an award dated 30.04.2025. 3. Assailing the award, learned counsel for the appellant- insurance company has made two fold submissions. His first conten%on is that it was a case of contributory negligence, as the accident was caused on account of head on collision between the trailer and the scooty on which the deceased was the pillion rider. This aspect has not been taken into considera%on by the Tribunal. Another submission is that an amount of ₹1,60,000/- has been paid as ex graa to the claimants by the department under Haryana Compassionate Assistance to the Dependents of deceased Government Employees Rules, 2006, which was liable to be deducted. 4. A9er perusing the paper-book, this Court does not find merit in any of the submissions. NEETIKA TUTEJA 2025.09.05 16:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-5302-2025 (O&M) -2- 5. As per the case pleaded by the claimants, on 27.07.2022 Ashok (deceased) along with Harish Chobe was en-route from Nangal Choudhary to Narnaul on scooty bearing registra%on No. HR 35R/1054, which was being driven by Harish Chobe and on which Ashok was pillion rider. At about 07:45 p.m. when they reached near village Mandi, the offending trailer No. RJ-32GC-4416 being driven by respondent Dinesh came at high speed and in rash and negligent manner from the Narnaul side and hit the scooty, as a result of which Harish Chobe fell on the katcha/unme>aled berm and Ashok was dragged with the scooty entangled in the trailer and sustained mul%ple injuries, which ul%mately proved fatal. FIR No.248 dated 28.07.2022 under Sec%ons 279 and 304-A IPC was registered at Police Sta%on Sadar, Narnaul. The claimants also pleaded about the salary being drawn by the deceased and claimed compensa%on accordingly. 6. As per the stand taken by respondents impleaded as driver & owner of the offending vehicle, no accident took place with trailer No. RJ- 32GC-4416 and that FIR was got registered in collusion with the police to get the compensa%on. It was also pleaded that as respondent driver was having a valid driving licence at the %me of accident and the vehicle was duly insured, so, it is the insurance company, which will be responsible to compensate the claimants. 7. The insurance company i.e. appellant herein took similar stand, denying any accident involving trailer No. RJ-32GC-4416 and false implica%on of the said vehicle. 8. Necessary issues were framed. In order to prove the negligent driving of the offending trailer, claimants relied mainly on the tes%mony of Harish Chobe, who was driving the scooty. The Tribunal came to the conclusion that accident was cause due to the negligent driving of the trailer. 9. As the perusal of the award would reveal, none of the respondents before the Tribunal including the applicant/insurance NEETIKA TUTEJA 2025.09.05 16:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-5302-2025 (O&M) -3- company took any such stand that accident was the result of contributory negligence on the part of scooty driver i.e. Harish Chobe, and the driver of the trailer. Not only this, no evidence whatsoever was produced by the driver and owner to prove any such contributory negligence. Except for tendering insurance policy, even the insurance company did not produce any such evidence. 10. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the conten%on raised by learned counsel for the appellant- insurance company to the effect that it was a case of contributory negligence; or that the driver and owner of the scooty should have been impleaded as a party, is found to contain no substance, being beyond pleadings. 11. Coming to the second submission, as per the evidence, an amount of ₹1,60,000/- was paid to claimant No.1- Sonia Bai widow of the deceased under Haryana Compassionate Assistance to the dependents of deceased Government Employee Rules, 2006. In the considered opinion of this Court, the said amount paid as ex graa to the widow of the deceased, cannot be deducted from the compensa%on amount payable to the claimants as awarded by the Tribunal. 12. As such, this Court does not find any merit in the appeal and so, the same is hereby dismissed. All the miscellaneous applica%on(s), if any, stand disposed of. (DEEPAK GUPTA) JUDGE September 04, 2025 Nee%ka Tuteja Whether Speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No NEETIKA TUTEJA 2025.09.05 16:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document