( 2026:HHC:10514 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA FAO No. 282 of 2025 Reserved on: 24.03 .2026 Date of decision: 07.04.2026 ________________________________________________ NIAC Ltd. …..Appellant Versus Pratibha Kapoor & Anr. ……Respondents ________________________________________________ Coram The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sushil Kukreja, Judge. 1 Whether approved for reporting? ________________________________________________ For the appellant: Mr. B.M. Chauhan, Senior Advocate with Mr. Amit Himalvi, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Bimal Gupta, Senior Advocate with Ms. Kusum Chaudhary, Advocate. Sushil Kukreja, Judge. The present appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act (for short “the Act”), is maintained by the appellant/Insurance Company, against the award passed by learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-I, District Kullu, H.P. (hereinafter referred to as “the learned Tribunal below”) in Claim Petition No. 17 of 2022, decided on 16.05.2025. 2. The brief facts of the case are that children of deceased Shakuntla Devi, filed claim petition, seeking 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? ( 2026:HHC:10514 ) compensation, on account of death of their mother, who died in a motor accident on 20.03.2021 in offending vehicle bearing registration No. HP-34-C-5710, in which, she was travelling with her husband Amar Prakash Kapoor, who was driving the said vehicle. According to the claimants, the vehicle was duly insured with the respondent/Insurance Company, as such, respondent is liable to compensate the claimants, being daughters of the deceased. 3. Reply to the petition has been filed by the respondent/Insurance Company, wherein, it has been specifically denied that vehicle No. HP-34-C-5710 was insured with it. It has been alleged that the vehicle was being plied in contravention of Motor Vehicles Act and its driver was not possessing valid and effective driving licence at the time of the accident. Lastly, a prayer for dismissal of the petition has been made, being not maintainable. 4. In rejoinder, contents of the petition were reiterated and that of the reply were denied. 5. On pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed on 10.06.2023:- 2 ( 2026:HHC:10514 ) “1. Whether on 20.03.2021 between 12:00 noon to 1:00 P.M. near Hotel Deluxe Jaloda, Smt. Shakultla Devi, the mother of the petitioners, died in a motor vehicular accident due to the rash and negligent driving of vehicle No. HP-34-C-5710, being driven by its driver/owner Sh. Amar Prakash Kapoor, who also died in the said accident, as alleged? OPP 2. If issue No. 1 is proved in affirmative, to what amount of compensation the petitioners are entitled and from whom? OPP. 3. Whether the petition is not maintainable? OPR 4. Whether the driver of vehicle in question was not possessing the valid and effective driving licence as well as owner of the vehicle was also not possessing valid documents and the vehicle in question was being plied in contravention of the M.V. Act and the contract of the Insurance Policy, as alleged? OPR 5. Whether the petitioners are not the legal heirs of deceased Smt. Shakuntla Devi, as alleged? OPR 6. Relief.” 6. After the parties led evidence and after hearing the learned Counsel for the parties, the claim petition was allowed and the claimants were held entitled to compensation in the sum of Rs. 78,20,378/- alongwith interest @ 7.5% per annum, from the date of filing of the petition till deposit of aforesaid amount of compensation, against the respondent/Insurance Company. 7. Feeling dissatisfied, the respondent/Insurance Company preferred the instant appeal under Section 173 of the Act for quashing and setting aside the impugned award. 3 ( 2026:HHC:10514 ) 8. Learned Senior Counsel for the appellant has vehemently contended that the learned Tribunal below has gravely erred by not returning any findings on the issue of negligence. He further contended that proof of negligence by the claimants is sine qua non for maintainability of claim petition under Section 166 of the Act as the claim under Section 166 of the Act is based on the principle of fault liability and until and unless the negligence is proved by the claimants, no liability can be imputed upon the insured and subsequently on the insurer. He also contended that learned Tribunal below has awarded compensation on the higher side, as such, the impugned award dated 16.05.2025, deserves to be set aside by accepting the present appeal. 9. On the other hand, learned Senior Counsel for the respondents has contended that the learned Tribunal below has rightly awarded the compensation in their favour and the present appeal deserves to be dismissed. 10. I have heard the learned Senior Counsel for the appellant, learned Senior Counsel for the respondents and carefully examined the entire record. 4 ( 2026:HHC:10514 ) 11. The present claim petition has been filed by the children of deceased Shakuntla Devi on the ground that their mother died in a motor accident which took place on 20.03.2021 with the offending vehicle bearing registration No. HP-34-C-5710, in which, the deceased was travelling with her husband Amar Prakash Kapoor, who was driving the vehicle and the said vehicle was duly insured with the respondent/Insurance Company. 12. The perusal of the award reveals that on the pleadings of the parties, the learned Tribunal below had framed the issues vide order dated 10.03.2023 and issue No. 1 regarding negligence of the driver of the vehicle has also been framed, which reads as under:- “1. Whether on 20.03.2021 between 12:00 noon to 1:00 P.M. near Hotel Deluxe Jaloda, Smt. Shakultla Devi, the mother of the petitioners, died in a motor vehicular accident due to the rash and negligent driving of vehicle No. HP-34-C-5710, being driven by its driver/owner Sh. Amar Prakash Kapoor, who also died in the said accident, as alleged? OPP” 13. However, while going through the entire award, it has become clear that the learned Tribunal below had failed to return findings on the said issue. In fact, no issue wise 5 ( 2026:HHC:10514 ) findings have been returned by the learned Tribunal below. Rather, learned Tribunal below had observed that issues No. 1, 3 and 4 are not required to be adjudicated upon and only issue No. 2 with respect to the quantum of compensation is required to be decided. 14. In the opinion of this Court, this approach of learned Tribunal below is totally against the settled principles of law. The judgment is designed to deliver the justice and not just a legal conclusion. Once the issues are framed, learned Tribunal below ought to have returned findings on all the issues. From an extensive reading of the judgment impugned, it is manifest that the ld. Tribunal had failed to return findings on the vital issue of negligence, which were required to be weighed in the specific facts of the present case, to form an opinion, while passing the impugned award. It was incumbent upon the tribunal to answer the question of negligence on evaluation of the pleadings, evidence and the material before it. The Tribunal was required to clearly answer the claim of the petitioner that whether on 20.03.2021 between 12:00 noon to 1:00 P.M. near Hotel 6 ( 2026:HHC:10514 ) Deluxe Jaloda, Smt. Shakuntla Devi, the mother of the petitioners, died in a motor vehicular accident due to the rash and negligent driving of vehicle No. HP-34-C-5710, being driven by its driver/owner Sh. Amar Prakash Kapoor, who also died in the said accident. Needless to state that the claim under Section 166 of Act is based on fault liability principle and proof of negligence is a sine qua non for maintaining a claim petition for compensation under Section 166 of the Act. 15. Therefore, since the learned Tribunal below had failed to return findings on issue No. 1 regarding negligence, which is sine qua non for deciding the maintainability of the claim petition under Section 166 of the Act, this Court is left with no other option but to set aside the impugned award dated 16.05.2025 and remand the case back to learned Tribunal below to decide the same afresh. The learned Tribunal below is directed to return findings on all the issues and decide the petition afresh after affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the parties. If any of the parties intend to lead evidence on the issues particularly issue no.1 7 ( 2026:HHC:10514 ) regarding negligence, then the Tribunal below shall give reasonable opportunity to the party(ies) to lead evidence on the said issue/issues. 16. Since the accident pertains to the year 2021, the learned Tribunal below is directed to decide the case on or before 31.10.2026. Parties are directed to appear before the learned Tribunal below on 04.05.2026. 17. Learned Registrar (Judicial) shall ensure that the entire record be remitted to the learned Tribunal below forthwith. ( Sushil Kukreja ) Judge 7th April, 2026 (raman) 8