Oriental Insurance Company Limited Vs Rooba Alias Rubina and Others — Punjab & Haryana HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Oriental Insurance Company Limited Vs Rooba Alias Rubina and Others — Punjab & Haryana HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Appeal dismissed; the Tribunal's award of Rs.16,98,904/- with interest @ 7% per annum stands affirmed; pending miscellaneous application(s) also stand dismissed.

Issue for consideration

Whether the involvement of the offending vehicle (HR-70B-6501) in the fatal accident of 27.05.2016 was adequately established, given that the FIR first registered by PW-2/Aabid did not mention the vehicle's registration number or the driver's name, and the owner/driver proceeded ex parte. +1 more

Court's answer

Non-mentioning of the registration number of the vehicle and the name of the driver by PW-2 Aabid is immaterial, because Tahir died in a roadside accident established by eye witnesses PW-2 Aabid and PW-3 Atti Mohd whose testimonies remained unshattered under cross-examination, and the involvement of the offending vehicle was duly proved in the police investigation with a final report under Section 173 Cr.P.C; hence the argument that the vehicle was falsely roped in has no force.

Ratio / Principle

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 that onus by leading cogent evidence; having been given due opportunities, it led no evidence and its evidence was closed by order on 10.05.2024.

Key takeaways

Filing of the claim petition after a gap of five years from the date of accident is immaterial, because no such issue was raised before the learned Tribunal that the claim petition was filed at such a belated stage.ratio¶5
This Court finds no illegality and infirmity in the award passed by the learned Tribunal, and consequently the instant appeal stands dismissed.ratio¶6

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

FAO-4789-2025 (O&M) (High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh; Amarinder Singh Grewal, J., oral; decided 06.08.2025): Insurer's appeal against the award dated 17.03.2025 of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Nuh granting Rs.16,98,904/- with 7% interest to six respondents, legal heirs of deceased Tahir killed on 27.05.2016 near village Dhulawat when vehicle HR-70B-6501 struck his motorcycle HR-52C-4255. Counsel argued the FIR (lodged next day, 28.05.2016, by PW-2/Aabid) omitted the vehicle number and driver's name, the 01.06.2016 supplementary statement naming HR-70B-6501 was contrived, owner/driver remained ex parte, and the claim was filed five years late. The Court held the omission immaterial: the next-day complaint described a white Swift car, involvement was proved in police investigation with a final report under Section 173 Cr.P.C, and eye witnesses PW-2 Aabid and PW-3 Atti Mohd withstood cross-examination; the onus of disproving involvement lay on the insurer, which led no evidence (evidence closed by order dated 10.05.2024); the five-year delay was immaterial as no such issue had been raised before the Tribunal. Appeal dismissed; award affirmed.

FAO-4789-2025 (O&M) -1-

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

120 FAO-4789-2025 (O&M) Date of Decision:06.08.2025

The Oriental I n surance Company Limited ... Appella n t

Versus

Smt. Rooba @ Rubina and others ... Respond e nts

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMARINDER SINGH GREWAL

Present: M r . Ram Avtar, Advocate fo r the appellant.

AMARINDER SINGH GREWAL, J. (ORAL)

T h e present appeal has been preferred by the appellant-Insur a nce Company agai n st the impugned award dated 17.03.2025 passed by the lea r ned Motor Acciden t Claims Tribunal, Nuh (for sho r t ‘the learned Tribunal’) where b y a compensation o f Rs.16,98,904/- has been awa r ded to respondents No.1 to 6 a l ong with interest @7% per annum from the date of c laim petition till its realization.

In brief, the facts, as culled out fr o m the grounds of appeal, are th a t on 27.05.2016, on e Tahir (since deceased) was g o ing to Manesar on his motor cycle bearing No.H R -52C-4255 on left side of the r o ad at a moderate speed and at a b out 9.30 PM, whe n he reached near village Dhul a wat, a vehicle bearing registr a tion No.HR-70B-6501 (hereinafter referred to as t h e ‘offending vehicle’) driven b y its driver in a ras h and negligent manner, came f rom wrong side and hit agains t the vehicle of the d eceased-Tahir. After the acci d ent, the deceased was taken t o the Sunrise Hospit a l, Gurugram from where he w as referred to Safdarjung Hos p ital owing to his cr i tical condition but was declare d brought dead. In the claim pet i tion preferred by th e legal heirs of deceased-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) -2-

compensation o f Rs.16,98,904/- along with int e rest @7% per annum from the date of institution o f the claim petition till reali z ation, which is subject matter of challenge in th e present appeal.

Le a rned counsel for the appellan t submits that involvement o f the offending veh i cle in the alleged accident h as not been established be y ond reasonable do u bt. It is further submitted t h at the FIR registered qua all e ged accident does n ot find mention the registration number of the vehicle alleged t o be involved in the said accident as well as name of the driver. Further, the FIR was got registered a t the behest of PW2-Aabid, w h o at the time of registration o f the FIR, did not m ention the registration number of the offending vehicle as we l l as names of owner and driver of the said vehicle. Rather, a supplementary state m ent was got record e d by the police on 01.06.2016 involving the offending vehicle just to get false c o mpensation from the appellan t -insurance company. It is fu r ther submitted that even the owner and driver of t h e offending vehicle did not ap p ear before the lea r ned Tribunal and they proce e ded ex parte simply to help the respondents-cl a imants to get the compensa t ion from the appellant-insur a nce company. It i s also submitted that even the c laim petition was preferred b y the respondents-cl a imants after a gap of five years from the date of accident and t hus, they were not e n titled for any compensation.

I h a ve heard learned counsel for t h e appellant and perused the paper book with his a b le assistance. 5. Ad m ittedly, name of the driver w as not mentioned by PW-2/Aabid while registeri n g FIR, which was got registe r ed next day of the accident i. e . on 28.05.2016. H o wever, on 01.06.2016, a suppl e mentary statement of PW-2 wa s got recorded wher e in registration number of the o f fending vehicle was mentione d 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) -3-

HR-70B-6501, which was held responsible f o r causing accident in which T ahir expired. The c omplaint Ex.P2 was given wi t hout any delay on the next da y of accident, whic h made basis of registration o f the FIR wherein the colour and description of the offending vehicle i.e. w hite colour swift car were d uly mentioned. F u rthermore, involvement of th e offending vehicle in the all e ged accident was d u ly proved in the police investigation and accordingly, final r e port was submitted by the police under Section 17 3 Cr.P.C, therefore, non-mentio n ing of registration number of the vehicle and n ame of driver by PW-2 Aabid is immaterial bec a use the fact remains that Tahi r died in a roadside accident, w h ich was duly estab l ished by the claimant by exami n ing eye witnesses PW-2 Aabid and PW-3 Atti Mo h d. These witnesses were dul y subjected to cross-examinatio n by the counsel ap p earing for the insurance comp a ny before the learned Tribunal and their testimoni e s remained unshattered and fo u nd reliable by the learned Trib u nal. The onus to prove that the offending vehicle was not involved in the all e ged accident was u p on the appellant-insurance co m pany but it failed to discharg e the said onus by leading cogent evidence. Rather, due opportunities were given t o the appellant-insur a nce to lead its evidence but n o evidence was led and thus, its evidence was c losed by order on 10.05.202 4 . Therefore, argument of lea r ned counsel for the appellant-insurance company t h at the offending vehicle was fa l sely roped in the a c cident by the respondents to g e t compensation from the appel l antinsurance, has n o force. Filing of claim petiti o n after a gap of five years fro m the date of accide n t is also immaterial because n o such issue was raised befor e the learned Tribun a l that the claim petition was fil e d at such a belated stage.

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) -4-

As a n upshot of above, this Court f i nds no illegality and infirmity i n the award passed b y the learned Tribunal and co n sequently, the instant appeal st a nds dismissed.

Mi s c. Application(s), pending if an y , also stands dismissed.

( AMARINDER SINGH GREWAL ) JUDGE August 06, 2025 Pankaj* Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No

PANKAJ KUMAR 2025.08.08 11:07 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh