1 ( 2026:HHC:35842 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA FAO No.202 of 2014 Decided on: 22.08.2026 National Insurance Company Limited …Appellant Versus Anita Sharma & Ors. …..Respondents Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Virender Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Appellant : Mr. Jagdish Thakur, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. Naresh K. Sharma, Advocate, for respondents No.1 to 3. Mr. Gaurav Kumar, Advocate, for respondents No.4 and 5. __________________________________________________________ Virender Singh, Judge (Oral): Appellant-Insurance Company has filed the present appeal, against the award dated 25.02.2014, passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-II, Solan, H.P., (hereinafter referred to as the ‘learned Tribunal’), in MAC Petition No.58-S/2 of 2009, titled as Anita Sharma and others versus Ranjit Singh and others, whereby, the claim petition, filed by respondents No.1 to 3 has been allowed, by directing the appellant-Insurance Company to pay compensation to the tune of Rs.7,44,044/-, along with interest @9% per annum from the date of filing of the petition, till realization of the whole amount. 2. The appeal has been admitted on 29.08.2014. 2 ( 2026:HHC:35842 ) 3. At the very outset, learned counsel appearing for the appellant has pointed out that the learned Tribunal has not given the adequate opportunity to lead evidence, in the present case, as despite taking steps and issuance of the coercive method to ensure the presence of the witnesses, the evidence of the Insurance Company was closed, vide order dated 04.01.2014. Prior to that, instead of taking the coercive steps to ensure the service of the respondents witnesses, the learned Tribunal has directed the Insurance Company to bring the witnesses, on its self responsibility. 4. Perusal of the record shows that the Insurance Company has filed list of witnesses, mentioning therein, the details of three RWs, namely The Licensing Authority, M.V. Department, Agra, District Agra, U.P., S.C. Chauhan, Insurance Investigator, Agra along with his D.L. Verification Report, in respect of D.L. No.3343/Ag/05 and The Branch Manager/Officer, National Insurance Company Limited, Shimla, H.P. 5. Admittedly, steps for summoning the witnesses were taken by the Insurance Company on 24.09.2012. When, the notices were received back after due service, thereafter, the learned Tribunal has directed to ensure the presence of the above witnesses, by issuing the notices, under Order 16, Rule 12 of CPC, 3 ( 2026:HHC:35842 ) as well as, bailable warrants. When, those warrants were not received back, either served, or unserved, then, on 03.12.2013, the learned Tribunal, has passed the following order:- “No evidence present nor process issued reportedly received back. Perusal of the record reveals that ample opportunities have already been availed of by the respondents. Under these circumstances, last adjournment in the interest of justice is granted. Let entire evidence of respondent to now come up on self responsibility on 04.01.2014. However, dasti summons as prayed for may be issued on usual terms.” 6. Thereafter, the matter was adjourned to 04.08.2024 and on that day, the learned Tribunal has closed the evidence of the Insurance Company. 7. In such situation, although the proceedings under Section 166 of M.V. Act, are summary in nature, where, the liability of tort feasor is to be fixed, on the touchstone of preponderance of probabilities, but the Insurance Company, being a party to the case, must be afforded an opportunity to lead the evidence in support of its defence. Merely because the provisions of M.V. Act are beneficiary in nature does not deprive the Insurance Company of its right to prove its defence. 8. On this score, the award, which has been challenged, by way of the present appeal, does not sustain in the judicial scrutiny by this Court. Consequently, the award dated 25.02.2014, is set-aside on this limited account. 4 ( 2026:HHC:35842 ) 9. The matter is ordered to be remanded back to the learned Tribunal, with a request to afford an opportunity to the Insurance Company to take steps for summoning the witnesses at Serial No.1 and 2, within 10 days from the date of appearance before the learned Tribunal. Thereafter, the above witnesses be summoned for the date to be fixed, by the learned Tribunal. 10. Needless to say that in case, the witnesses do not appear, despite the fact that those summons are received back after due service, the learned Tribunal is at liberty to take the coercive steps to secure the presence of the witnesses. Since the matter pertains to the year 2009, as such, it is expected from the learned Tribunal to decide the above claim petition, after recording the evidence of the witnesses of the Insurance Company on or before 31.12.2026. 11. Parties, through their counsel, are directed to appear before the learned Tribunal on 08.09.2026. 12. Record be sent back, immediately. (Virender Singh) Judge August 22, 2026 (subhash)