Punjab-Haryana High Court
Radha And Others vs Gulab Singh And Others on 16 October, 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
Date of Decision: 16.10.2025
(1) FAO-3427-2021 (O&M)
Smt. Radha and others ....Appellants
V/s
Gulab Singh and others ....Respondents
(2) FAO-3108-2022 (O&M)
Gulab Singh and another ....Appellants
V/s
Radha and others ....Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKRAM AGGARWAL
Present: Mr. Amit Chaudhary, Advocate
for the appellants (in FAO-3427-2021).
Ms. Monika Tanwar, Advocate,
for the appellants (in FAO-3108-2022) and
for respondents No.1 and 2 ( in FAO-3427-2021).
Mr. Parveen, Advodate for
Mr. Dhananjay Singh, Advocate,
for respondent No.7 (in FAO-3108-2022)
*****
VIKRAM AGGARWAL, J.
This judgment shall dispose of the afore titled appeals. FAO- 3108-2022 has been instituted by Gulab Singh and Rubi Devi (driver and owner of the Swaraj Tractor bearing Regn. No.HR40-G-3327) and FAO- 3427-2021 has been instituted by Smt. Radha and others (claimants).
2. Whereas the appellants in FAO-3108-2022 assail the Award dated 18.10.2021 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Hisar (hereinafter referred to as the "MACT") on the ground that the liability to 1 of 9 ::: Downloaded on - 11-11-2025 06:15:05 ::: FAO-3427-2021 & FAO-3108-2022 -2- pay the compensation was erroneously held to be that of the appellants and the insurance company was absolved, the claimants have instituted their appeal seeking enhancement in the compensation awarded by the MACT.
3. The facts, as emanating from the appeals, are that a petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the "MV Act") was filed by the widow, mother, sons and daughters of one Sohan Ram, who expired in a motor vehicular accident which took place on 20.04.2019.
4. It was pleaded in the claim petition that on 20.04.2019, one of the claimants Sunil Kumar along with his father Sohan Ram had gone on a bicycle from their Jhuggis situated in Village Muana, Police Station Safidon to purchase some articles from a shop. After purchasing the said articles, Sohan Ram proceeded on his bicycle towards his house whereas, claimant Sunil Kumar tried to get onto the bicycle with his father Sohan Ram. In the meantime, a Swaraj Tractor bearing Regn. No.HR40-G-3327 (hereinafter referred to as the "offending vehicle") attached with a trailer, loaded with bricks, which was being driven by respondent No.1 (Gulab Singh) in a rash and negligent manner came from the side of Village Muana-Safidon Road and struck against Sohan Ram. As a result of the impact, Sohan Ram sustained multiple serious injuries and expired at the spot. Respondent No.1 fled from the spot leaving his tractor-trailer behind. On the statement of Sunil, FIR No.177 dated 20.04.2019 was registered under Sections 279 and 304A IPC at Police Station Safidon.
5. Sohan Ram was stated to be 45 years old at the time of the accident and was stated to be a mason by profession, earning Rs.24000/- per month. It was averred that the claimants were entirely dependent upon his earning and a sum of Rs.50,000/- was stated to have been spent on the last 2 of 9 ::: Downloaded on - 11-11-2025 06:15:05 ::: FAO-3427-2021 & FAO-3108-2022 -3- rites, transportation etc.
6. The driver and owner of the offending vehicle opposed the claim petition. In the written statement, it was averred that the accident had taken place on account of the own negligence of Sohan Ram as he had lost balance over the bicycle. It was averred that a false FIR had been registered. Other averments were denied.
7. The insurance company submitted its written statement raising usual defences. The factum of the accident having taken place was denied. Still further, it was averred that only the tractor was insured and not the trailer and under the circumstances, the insurance company would not be liable to pay any compensation and the liability, if any, would be of the driver and owner of the offending vehicle.
8. From the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed:-
"1. Whether the accident in question causing death of Sohan Ram occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the Swaraj Tractor bearing registration No.HR40G-3327 by respondent No.1 ?OPP
2. If issue No.1 is proved whether the petitioner are entitled to recover the amount of compensation from the respondents, if so, to what extent and from whom ?OPP
3. Whether the insurance company is not liable to pay compensation as the terms and conditions of insurance policy have been violated by respondents No.1 and 2 ? OPR3
4. Whether the present petition of the petitioners is not maintainable in view of stand taken in the written statements?OPR
5. Relief."
9. Parties led their respective evidence.
10. Under issue No.1, the MACT held that the accident, as a result 3 of 9 ::: Downloaded on - 11-11-2025 06:15:05 ::: FAO-3427-2021 & FAO-3108-2022 -4- of which Sohan Ram had expired, had taken place on account of the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by respondent No.1. Under issue No.2, the age of Sohan Ram was assessed between 48 to 50 years. In so far as the income is concerned, the same was assessed Rs.8827/- per month, the same being the minimum wages for an unskilled worker. While applying the other formulas in terms of the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case of Smt. Sarla Verma and others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another, 2009 SCC Online SC 797, National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and others, 2017 (4) RCR (Civil) 1009 and Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Nanu Ram @ Churu Ram and others, 2018 (4) RCR (Civil) 333, a total sum of Rs.15,60,952/- was awarded as compensation. As far as the liability is concerned, it was held that since the trailer was not insured and only the tractor was insured, the insurance company would not be liable to satisfy the claim and only the driver and owner of the offending vehicle would be jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation. It is against the said decision that the driver and owner of the offending vehicle preferred their appeal whereas, the claimants seek enhancement in compensation.
11. I have heard learned counsel for the parties.
12. Learned counsel representing the appellants in FAO-3108-2022 has strenuously urged that the MACT erred in fastening the liability upon the driver and owner, whereas, it is settled law that there is no requirement for the trailer to be insured separately. In support of her contentions, learned counsel has placed reliance upon the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Lakhmi Chand Vs. Reliance General Insurance, 2016(1) RCR (Civil) 794 and Fahim Ahmad and others Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. and others, (2014) 14 SCC 148.
4 of 9 ::: Downloaded on - 11-11-2025 06:15:05 ::: FAO-3427-2021 & FAO-3108-2022 -5-
13. Learned counsel representing the appellants in FAO-3427-2021 has submitted that the compensation awarded is inadequate and that the same should have been awarded in terms of the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Smt. Sarla Verma, Pranay Sethi and Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. (supra).
14. Per contra, learned counsel representing the insurance company has submitted that there is no illegality in the award. It has been submitted that since the trailer not separately insured, there would be no liability of the insurance company to satisfy the award since only the tractor has been insured.
15. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties.
16. In so far as the issue of liability to pay the compensation is concerned, the matter now stands settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of The Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Limited Vs. Smt. Honnamma and others (SLP (Civil) No.2135-2023, decided on 05.05.2025). The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India held that where the accident had taken place on account of use of the tractor, there would be no requirement of the trailer to be separately insured:-
"11. Therefore, the undisputed position is that the trailer was being pulled by/attached to the tractor and then the trailer on which the deceased was present, turned turtle/upturned, resulting in his death.
From the above, it is clear that the tractor which was insured was the reason for the accident. It is not the case that only because of some fault on the part of the trailer stand-alone, the accident happened. To explain, we may give an example: that had the trailer been stationary at a place and due to some reason, it overturned or a mishap happened, then without the trailer being specifically insured the Appellant would not be 5 of 9 ::: Downloaded on - 11-11-2025 06:15:05 ::: FAO-3427-2021 & FAO-3108-2022 -6- liable to pay, but here the main cause of the accident was the tractor which was pulling/driving/moving the trailer and in such sequence of events, the trailer upturned. Thus, the accident was caused by the tractor, as during the course of being driven/pulled by the tractor, the accident occurred.
12. Thus, the liability of the tractor/its insurer extended to the accident caused by the tractor resulting in the death of the deceased, through the trailer. This being the position in the present case, the principles emanating from the decisions where the Courts have held that the trailer has to be separately registered with the insurance company to make it liable, would not be applicable. To that extent, the facts in the present case are clearly distinguishable from the ones cited by learned counsel for the appellant. The legislation i.e., the MV Act, being beneficial and welfare-oriented in nature [Ningamma v United India Insurance Co.
Ltd., (2009) 13 SCC 710; K Ramya v National Insurance Co. Ltd., 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1338, and; Shivaleela v Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd., 2025 SCC OnLine SC 563] and ultimately the root cause of the accident being the tractor, which was insured, this crucial fact cannot be lost sight of. For further clarification, we might illustrate: if an insured vehicle hits another vehicle which in turn hits a third vehicle, then for the entire chain of accidents, the liability would pass on to the vehicle which was the root cause of the accident because it is the result of the action in the same chain of events which cannot be segregated or compartmentalized. Moreover, this Court is duty-bound to be mindful of the ground realities of our nation and cannot let practicality be overshadowed by technicality.
13. In Dhondubai (supra), the Court stated:
5. In a matter of the present nature, the law is well settled that when a tractor and trailer are involved, both the tractor as well as the trailer are required to be insured. Therefore, in a normal circumstance, when the appellant/claimant was travelling in the 6 of 9 ::: Downloaded on - 11-11-2025 06:15:05 ::: FAO-3427-2021 & FAO-3108-2022 -7- trailer which was not insured, the liability on the Insurance Company cannot be fastened and to that extent the High Court was justified."(emphasis supplied)
14. To our mind, the learned Judges in Dhondubhai (supra) did not lay down an absolute principle of law, but taking note of Oriental Insurance Co. Limited v Brij Mohan, (2007) 7 SCC 56, it was ordered that the 'respondent-Insurance Company shall pay the amount awarded by the High Court as compensation with the accrued interest and recover the same from the owner of the vehicle. A decision by a Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Kadapa District v Koduru Bhagyamma, 2007 SCC OnLine AP 830 is relevant:
'1. This case has come before this Court on a reference made by a learned Single Judge of this Court as it was contended before the learned Single Judge by the appellant that as the trailer in which the deceased was travelling was not insured, although it was attached to the tractor which was insured, therefore no liability could be fastened upon the insurer.
XXX
13. Now on analysis of these judgments and the provisions of law which have been quoted above, we feel that the law has been correctly appreciated by a learned Single Judge of this Court in Gunti Devaiah v. Vaka Peddi Reddy (supra) and the reasons given by him are sufficient to hold that under the Motor Vehicles Act no separate insurance is contemplated for a trailer and when the trailer is attached to the tractor which is insured, it becomes the part of the tractor. We reproduce the Para 26 of the said judgment as under: "The word "vehicle" mentioned in Section 147 is co-relatable to the word motor vehicles, which is stipulated in Section 146. Therefore, the expression ression vehicl vehicle wherever appearing in Chapter X(XI) has to be only read as motor vehicle. The principle of claim for compensation in accidents arising out of the use of the motor vehicle is based on tortuous liability and the negligence of the driver of the motor vehicle is a sine quo non for maintaining a claim under the provisions of the Act. Inasmuch as the trailer by itself cannot be driven and it has to be carried or towed with a motor vehicle namely a tractor or a like self-propelled vehicles. Therefore, the question of driving the trailer in a rash and negligent manner would not arise. It is only the prime mover or the motor vehicle which controls movement of the tractor and in case of the negligence driving of the trailer or the motor vehicle, the owner of the vehicle and its insurer alone will be made liable for payment of compensation. But, since the trailer is attached can it be said that trailer should also be independently insured so as to avoid the liability of compensation in case of rash and negligent 7 of 9 ::: Downloaded on - 11-11-2025 06:15:05 ::: FAO-3427-2021 & FAO-3108-2022 -8- driving by the driver. That contingency would not arise, as it is only a vehicle and not a motor vehicle. It may be for tax purposes, it is treated as a goods vehicle. But, under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, no separate insurance is contemplated.
When the trailer is attached to the tractor it becomes a tractor- trailer. There is no provision requiring the trailer to be separately insured to cover the third party risk. The reasons are obvious that it cannot be driven by the driver as in the case of motor vehicles or tractors. Thus, a separate distinction has been drawn between the motor vehicle and a vehicle i.e., visible in all the definitions and more especially in Chapter XI. The same situation also persists in Chapter X in case of no fault liability wherein it has been stated that whether a death or a permanent disability of any person has been resulted from an accident arising out of the use of a motor vehicle or motor vehicles and there is no reference to vehicle as such. This aspect was never considered in any of the decisions relied on by the learned Standing Counsel for the Insurance Company and also for other side. (underlined in original; emphasis supplied by us through the bold highlight)."
15. A similar view was taken by a coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Malik Sahab vs. Raj Bala and others, 2025 NCPHHC 74982 (FAO-1605-2006, decided on 29.05.2025). The coordinate Bench also placed reliance upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of The Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd. (supra).
16. It is, therefore, manifestly clear that the MACT took an erroneous view in fastening the liability to pay compensation upon the driver and owner of the offending vehicle and absolving the insurance company from the same.
17. In view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, the said findings of the MACT are reversed and all the respondents (before the MACT) are held to be jointly and severally liable to satisfy the Award. It is also held that there was no violation of the terms and conditions of the policy of the insurance.
8 of 9 ::: Downloaded on - 11-11-2025 06:15:05 ::: FAO-3427-2021 & FAO-3108-2022 -9-
18. As regards the quantum, there is no error in the assessment and income of the deceased and only the consortium, loss of estate, filial compensation, transportation etc. needs to be reassessed. Therefore, the compensation under conventional heads is enhanced as under:-
Sr. Heads Awarded by Enhanced
No. the MACT Compensation
1. Loss of dependency Rs.12,90,952/- Rs.12,90,952/-
(No change)
2. Transportation & Last Rs.15000/- Rs.18000/-
Rites Expenses
3. Loss of Estate Rs.15000/- Rs.18000/-
4. Spouse Consortium Rs.40000/- Rs.48000/-
5. Filial Consortium Rs.40000/- Rs.48000/-
6. Parental Consortium Rs.160000/- 1,92,000/-
(Rs.48000x4)
7. Total Compensation Rs.15,60,952/- Rs.16,14,952/-
awarded
The total compensation, therefore, comes to Rs.16,14,952/-. After deducting a sum of Rs.15,60,952/-, as assessed by the MACT, the balance compensation comes to Rs.54,000/-. This amount would be payable in addition to the amount assessed by the learned MACT along with interest @ 6 per cent annually. The liability to pay the same would be as per the award.
19. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, FAO-3108- 2022 is allowed, whereas FAO-3427-2021 is disposed of in the above terms.
Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.
(VIKRAM AGGARWAL)
JUDGE
October 16, 2025
vcgarg Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
Whether reportable: Yes/No
9 of 9
::: Downloaded on - 11-11-2025 06:15:05 :::