Neutral Citation No. ( 2026:HHC:24715 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA FAO(MV) No. 125 of 2014 Date of decision: 24.06.2026 Date of uploading on website: 24.06.2026 ________________________________________________ National Insurance Company Limited. …..Appellant. Versus Miss Parveen Pandit & others …..Respondents. ______________________________________________ Coram The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sushil Kukreja, Judge. 1Whether approved for reporting? ________________________________________________ For the appellant: Mr. Ishan Sharma, Advocate. For respondent No. 1: Mr. Vijay Verma, Advocate. For respondents No. 2 & 3: Mr. H.S. Rawat, Advocate. Sushil Kukreja, Judge. The instant appeal has been maintained by appellant, i.e., National Insurance Company Limited, who was respondent No. 3 before the learned Tribunal below (hereinafter referred to as “the appellant/Insurance Company”) under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short ‘The Act’) against impugned award, dated 09.09.2013, passed by learned Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, Mandi, District Mandi, H.P. (hereinafter referred to as “the learned Tribunal”), whereby the claim petition filed by 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Neutral Citation No. ( 2026:HHC:24715 ) 2 the petitioner-claimant Miss Parveen Pandit (respondent No. 1 herein) under Section 166 of the Act, was allowed and she was held entitled for compensation in the sum of Rs.3,02,000/- alongwith interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till the realization of the amount from respondent No. 3-National Insurance Company (appellant herein). 2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner- claimant, Miss Parveen Pandit, sustained injuries in an accident, which took place on 29.12.2008, around 05:30 p.m. at Souli Khad, Mandi, H.P., involving Maruti Van, having registration No. HP-31-3699, which was owned by Shri Rajender Pal (respondent No. 2 herein), being driven by Shri Bhupesh Kumar (respondent No. 3 herein) and insured by appellant-Insurance Company. 2(a). The petitioner-claimant averred in her petition before the learned Tribunal below that on 29.12.2008 she was returning to her house, on her scooty, which was being driven by her in normal speed on left side of the road. When she reached just ahead of Shikara Guest House, the offending vehicle came from Mandi side and it was being driven by respondent No. 2 in a rash and negligent manner Neutral Citation No. ( 2026:HHC:24715 ) 3 and also on wrong side of the road. The offending vehicle hit the scooty of the petitioner and she fell down and sustained multiple grievous injuries, including fracture on her right knee. The petitioner further averred that at the time of the accident, her age was 31 years and her monthly income was Rs.10,000/-, as she used to work as Manager in Tarna Gas Agency, Souli Khad, Mandi. After the accident, the driver of the offending vehicle absconded from the spot and the petitioner was taken to Zonal Hospital, Mandi, wherein she remained admitted till 08.01.2009. The petitioner remained under treatment till 16.12.2009, as she was operated and she spent more than Rs.1,50,000/- on her treatment. After the accident the petitioner became permanently disabled due to the injures sustained by her in the aforesaid accident and virtually her working capacity was reduced. The petitioner sought compensation of Rs.5,00,000/-. 3. Respondents No. 1 and 2, owner and driver of the offending vehicle filed their reply, wherein they denied occurrence of the accident due to the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by respondent No. 2. It was averred that in fact the accident took place due to the negligence of the petitioner herself, as she failed to control Neutral Citation No. ( 2026:HHC:24715 ) 4 her scooty, resultantly the same skidded on the road and the petitioner sustained injuries. The replying respondents, denied the age and income of the petitioner and also denied that she spent Rs.1,50,000/- on her treatment. It was also denied that the due to the injuries sustained by the petitioner, she became permanent disabled and her earning capacity was affected. The offending vehicle, at the time of the accident, was insured with respondent No. 3 (appellant herein) and in case any compensation is payable to the petitioner, then respondent No. 3 is liable to pay the same. 4. Respondent No. 3-Insurance Company filed its separate reply, wherein preliminary objections that the driver of the vehicle in question was not holding a valid and effective driving license at the time of the accident and the vehicle in question was being plied in violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy were taken. On merits, the averments made in the petition were denied. 5. On 16.04.2012 the learned Tribunal below had framed the following issues for consideration and adjudication: “1. Whether the petitioner sustained injury in a road side accident on 29.12.2008 at about 5:30 p.m. involving vehicle No. HP-31-3699, being driven by respondent No. 2 in a rash Neutral Citation No. ( 2026:HHC:24715 ) 5 and negligent manner, as alleged? OPP 2. If issue No. 1 is proved in affirmative, to what amount of compensation the claimant is entitled for and from whom? OPP 3. Whether the driver of the vehicle bearing NO HP-31-3699 was not holding valid and effective driving licence to drive the vehicle at the time of accident? OPR_3 4. Whether the vehicle No. HP-31-3699 was being plied in violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy? OPR-3 5. Relief.” 6. After the parties led evidence and after hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the claim petition was allowed and the petitioner/claimant was held entitled for compensation in the sum of Rs.3,02,000/- alongwith interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till the realization of the amount. 7. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, the appellant- Insurance Company preferred the instant appeal against the impugned award dated 09.09.2013, with prayer to allow the instant appeal by quashing and setting-aside the impugned award and exonerate the appellant-Insurance Company from the liability of payment of the amount of compensation, interest etc.. 8. I have heard the learned Counsel for the appellant, learned counsel for respondent No. 1, learned Neutral Citation No. ( 2026:HHC:24715 ) 6 counsel for respondents No. 2 & 3 and carefully examined the entire records. 9. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that the learned Tribunal below had wrongly and incorrectly fastened the liability on the insurance company for payment of compensation alongwith interest etc., despite the fact that the driver of the offending vehicle was not holding a valid and effective driving licence at the time of the accident. He further contended that the learned Tribunal below had closed the evidence of the appellant-insurance company without affording any reasonable opportunity to it. 10. Conversely, the learned counsel for respondents No. 1,and 2 & 3 supported the impugned award and contended that the impugned award is the result of proper appreciation of both law and facts. They prayed that the instant appeal, being devoid of merits, be dismissed. 11. The perusal of the record reveals that the evidence of the petitioner was closed on 24.12.2012 and thereafter the case was listed for the evidence of the respondents. On 28.02.2013 the learned counsel for respondents No. 1 and 2, i.e., owner and driver of the offending vehicle, respectively, closed the evidence on their Neutral Citation No. ( 2026:HHC:24715 ) 7 behalf and thereafter the case was listed for evidence on behalf of respondent No. 3-Insurance company. Thereafter, witnesses of respondent No. 3 were summoned by the learned Tribunal below, but despite summoning of the witnesses, the witnesses of respondent No. 3-Insurance Company were not present and ultimately on 08.07.2013 the learned Tribunal below had ordered the issuance of dasti summons for the service of the witnesses of respondent No. 3. However, on 24.07.2013 the evidence on behalf of respondent No. 3-Insurance Company (appellant herein) was abruptly closed, instead of waiting for the return of the dasti summons either served or unserved. The learned Tribunal below did not care to note down in its zimni order dated 24.07.2013 as to whether the witnesses of respondent No. 3 were served or unserved. For the sake of ready reference order dated 24.07.2013, passed by the learned Tribunal below, is reproduced hereunder: “24.7.2013 Present: Sh. Ajay Thakur, Advocate, for petitioner Shr. D.S. Katoch, Advocate, for respondents No. 1 & 2. Shri Sunder Goel, Advocate, for respondent No. 3. Sufficient opportunity has been granted to produce the evidence on behalf of respondent No. 3. Since no witnesses are present and as such the evidence of respondent No. 3 is closed by the order of this tribunal. Be put up on 25.07.2013 for arguments.” Neutral Citation No. ( 2026:HHC:24715 ) 8 12. Therefore, the perusal of the aforesaid order passed by the learned Tribunal below show that the appellant-Insurance Company has not been afforded proper opportunity for leading its evidence. In a similar situation a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in FAO No. 223 of 2015, titled as Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Ramila & others, in paras 7 and 8 observed as under: “7. A perusal of the orders passed by the learned Tribunal below from time to time would clearly indicate that the appellant in fact has not been afforded a proper opportunity of leading its evidence. In case summons being sent by the learned Tribunal below were not being returned or the witness despite service was not appearing, then it was for the learned Tribunal below to have proceeded in the matter in accordance with order 16 of the Code of Civil Procedure. After all, appellant was only required to submit the list of witnesses, file process fee along with road and diet money for the witnesses proposed to be examined by it. Rest it was for the learned Tribunal which alone is empowered to enforce attendance and compel the appearance of the witnesses and, therefore, the Tribunal was duty bound to do so as the appellant had no authority to enforce the attendance of the witnesses. 8. Identical issue came up before this Court in CMPMO No.294 of 2014 titled as ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co.Ltd Vs. Soun Khatun & ors, decided on 14.11.2014, wherein it was held as under: “3. It is established on record that ‘dasti’ summons issued by the Tribunal had been duly served upon Record Keeper, RTO, Mathura for 12.8.2014, but the said witness had not appeared. Now in case the witness was not present despite service, then this in itself could not be a ground to have fastened any blame upon the petitioner. Rather, the Curt should have exercised its larger power of enforcing the attendance of the witnesses by resorting to coercive steps. After all the assistance of the Court to examine witnesses is sought because the Courts are vested with the authority to enforce the attendance of the witnesses even if the same be at the cost of his liberty and convenience. In this view of the matter, under no circumstances, whatsoever could the evidence of the petitioner have been Neutral Citation No. ( 2026:HHC:24715 ) 9 closed on this count. 4. It must be remembered that the Courts are respected not on account of its power to legalize injustice on technical grounds but because it is capable of removing injustice and is expected to do so and further taking into consideration the fact that when substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other, cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred for the other side cannot claim to have vested right in injustice being done.” 13. In the instant case also, when summonses were being sent by the learned Tribunal below and the same were not being returned either served or unserved, then it was for the learned Tribunal below to have proceeded in the matter in accordance with order 16 of the Code of Civil Procedure as the learned Tribunal below was duty bound to do so. 14. Therefore, in this view of the matter, this Court is left with no other option, but to remand the matter back to the learned Tribunal below for deciding issues No. 3 and 4 afresh, after giving reasonable opportunity to the appellant- Insurance Company to lead its evidence by providing all necessary assistance of the Court. However, it is made clear that insofar as findings on all other issues, except issues No. 3 and 4, are concerned, the same will not be interfered with in any manner whatsoever by the learned Tribunal below and only fresh findings shall be rendered on issues No. 3 and 4. It is also made clear that in case witnesses despite service Neutral Citation No. ( 2026:HHC:24715 ) 10 fail to turn up, the learned Tribunal shall not hesitate to take coercive measures to secure their presence. 15. In view of the matter, the instant appeal is partly allowed in the above terms leaving the parties to bear their own costs. 16. Since the matter pertains to the year 2008, the learned Tribunal below is directed to decide the case as expeditiously as possible and in no event later than 31st December, 2026. 17. The parties are directed to appear before the learned Tribunal below on 29th June, 2026. 18. Learned Registrar (Judicial) shall ensure that the entire record be remitted to the learned Reference Court forthwith. The appeal stands disposed of in the above terms. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand(s) disposed of. ( Sushil Kukreja ) Judge 24th June, 2026 (virender)