1 FAO NO.3040 OF 20024 (O&M) ININININ THETHETHETHE HIGHHIGHHIGHHIGH COURTCOURTCOURTCOURT OFOFOFOF PUNJAPUNJAPUNJAPUNJAABABABAB ANDANDANDAND HARYANAHARYANAHARYANAHARYANA ATATATAT CHANDIGACHANDIGACHANDIGACHANDIGAARHARHARHARH FAOFAOFAOFAO No.3No.No.No.3040304030403040 ofofofof 2024202020 (O&M)(O&M)(O&M)(O&M) VISHALVISHALVISHALVISHAL KOHLKOHLKOHLKOHLLILILILI …Appellant…Appe…Appe…Appellantllantllant VsVsVsVs

USHAUSHAUSHAUSHA DEVIDEVIDEVIDEVI ANANANANNDNDNDND OTHERSOTHERSOTHERSOTHERS …Respondents…Respondent…Respondent…Respondent 1 TheTheTheThe datedatedatedate wwhenwwhenwwhenwwhen thethethethe judgmentjudgmentjudgmentjudgment waswaswaswas reservedreservedreservedreservedd 27.0.0.0.05.2022026202202 2 TheTheTheThe datedatedatedate wwhenwwhenwwhenwwhen thethethethe judgmentjudgmentjudgmentjudgment isisisis pronouncepronouncepronouncepronounce d 02.0.0.0.07.2026.2026.2026.2026 3 TheTheTheThe datedatedatedate wwhenwwhenwwhenwwhen thethethethe judgmentjudgmentjudgmentjudgment isisisis uploadeduploadeduploadeduploaded ooononooonon thethethethe websitewebsitewebsitewebsite 02.0.0.0.07.2026.2026.2026.2026 4 WhetherWhetherWhetherWhether oonlyoonlyoonlyoonly operativeoperativeoperativeoperative partpartpartpart ofofofof thethethethe judgmejudgmejudgmejudgmeentententent isisisis FullFullFullFull pronouncepronouncepronouncepronounceedededed orororor whetherwhetherwhetherwhether thethethethe fullfullfullfull judgmentjudgmentjudgmentjudgment iiisisiiisis pronouncedpronouncedpronouncedpronounced 5 TheTheTheThe delaydelaydelaydelayy,y,,, ifififif any,any,any,any, ofofofof thethethethe pronouncementpronouncementpronouncementpronouncement ooooffff fullfullfullfull NotNotNotNot applicableapplicableapplicableapplicable judgment,judgment,judgment,judgment,,, andandandand reasonsreasonsreasonsreasons thereof.thereof.thereof.thereof.

CORAM:CORAM:CORAM:CORAM: HONHONHONHONN'BLEN'BLEN'BLEN'BLEMR.MR.MR.MR.JUSTICEJUSTICEJUSTICEJUSTICEHARKESHHARKESHHARKESHHARKESHHHHHMANUJAMANUJMANUJMANUJ Present: Mr . Ashwani Arora, Advocate and Mr . Vipul Sharma, Advocate for the appellant. Mr . R.C. Kapoor, Advocate for respondent No.6/Insurance Commpany. **** HARKESHHARKESHHARKESHHARKESHMAMAMAMAANUJA,ANUJA,ANUJA,ANUJA,J.J.J.J. 1.1.1.1. The preseent appeal has been preferred byy the appellant-owner of offendding vehicle bearingg registration No.PB-08CX-5 417 assailing the award daated 18.04.2024 passsed by the learned Motor A ccident Claims Tribunal, Karnnal, whereby compeensation of ₹7,72,300/- along wwith interest @ 8% per annum wasw awarded on acccount of death of Kapil Deev Goswami and while directting respondent No.33-Insurance Company to satisfyy the award, recovery rights werew granted against tthe owner on the ground that thee offending vehicle was being pllied without a valid ppermit. BRIEFBRIEFBRIEFBRIEF FACTSFACTSFACTSFACTS 2.2.2.2. Thee claim petition arose out of an accident dated 29.10.2021 wherrein Kapil Dev Goswwami suffered fatal injuries afteer being hit by milk tanker bearring MOHMED ATIK 2026.07.02 16:46 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment 2 FAO NO.3040 OF 20024 (O&M)

registration Noo.PB-08CX-5417. The learned Tribunal, upon appreciation of evidence led byy the parties, held that the acccident occurred due to rash anda negligent drivinng of respondent No.1-driverr and awarded compensation of ₹7,72,300/- to thhe claimants. Though the learnedd Tribunal held that the vehicle wasw duly insured andd the driver possessed a valid drriving licence, recovery rights werew granted to the innsurer on the premise that the oowner of the offending vehicle wasw not possessing a valid permit on the date off accident. Aggrieved thereof, the present appeal wwas filed by the owner. 3.3.3.3. Durring pendency of the appeal, thhe appellant moved an applicattion seeking permission to lead additional evidence bby producing:- (i) Goods Carriage Permit issued by the State of Punjab valid frrom 27.10.2020 to 26.10.2025; (ii) Authorization Certificate of NNational Permit issued under RuleR 87((2) of the Central Motor Vehicless Rules, 1989; and (iii)) Circular dated 30.09.2021 iissued by the Ministry of Rooad Traansport and Highways extendingg validity of vehicle documentss in vieww of the Covid-19 pandemic. Vidde order dated 13.02.2026, this Court allowed the application anda remitted Issue NNo.3 to the Tribunal for examinattion afresh.

4.4.4.4. Purrsuant to the aforesaid order, the Tribunal recorded additioonal evidence and ssubmitted its report. The learnned Tribunal noticed that Ex.R6 (Permit) was vallid from 27.10.2020 to 26.10.20225. Ex.R7 established authorizattion to ply throughouut the territory of India and Ex. R8 evidenced extension of validdity of transport doocuments upto 31.10.2021. Thhe learned Tribunal categoricaally MOHMED ATIK 2026.07.02 16:46 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment 3 FAO NO.3040 OF 20024 (O&M) concluded that oon the date of accident i.e. 29.110.2021, the offending vehicle wasw being operated under a valid permit and there was no violation of the terms anda conditions of thhe insurance policy. The Insurrance Company failed to lead anya rebuttal evidenc e against the said documents. DISCUSSIONDISCUSSIONDISCUSSIONDISCUSSION AANDAANDAANDAAND REASONINGREASONINGREASONINGREASONING 5.5.5.5. I h ave heard learned counsel for tthe parties and perused the papper-book of the casee. QUESTIONQUESTIONQUESTIONQUESTION OFOFOFOFFFFF NEGLIGENCENEGLIGENCENEGLIGENCENEGLIGENCE

6.6.6.6. Thee findings recorded by the leearned Tribunal on the aspect of negligence do nnot warrant any interference by tthis Court. The testimony of PWW-2 Raja Goswami, who claims to be an eye-wittness to the occurrence, remainned consistent, cogeent and trustworthy throughoutt. His ocular version stands dulyd corroborated bby the contemporaneous recoord, namely FIR No.373 daated 29.10.2021, thee report submitted under Sectiion 173 Cr.P.C. and the crimiinal proceedings inittiated against respondent No.1-ddriver in respect of the accidentt in question. 6.16.16.16.1 Siggnificantly, respondent No.1-ddriver, despite having the bestb opportunity to c ontrovert the allegations levelledd against him, chose not to step intoi the witness boxx. In the absence of any expllanation regarding the mannerr of occurrence, the learned Tribunal was justifiedd in drawing an adverse inferennce against him. It is settled principle of law thhat proceedings before the Mootor Accident Claimms Tribunal are summary in natuure and strict rules of evidence are not required to be applied. The issue of negliigence is to be determined on the touchstone of ppreponderance of probabilities and not on the standard of prroof MOHMED ATIK 2026.07.02 16:46 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment 4 FAO NO.3040 OF 20024 (O&M)

applicable in crriminal trials. In view of the afforesaid evidence and settled leegal position, this CCourt finds no infirmity in the cconclusion reached by the learnned Tribunal that thee accident occurred on account oof rash and negligent driving of the offending vehiclle by respondent No.1. Accordinngly, the findings returned on Isssue No.1 are affirmeed. QUESTIONQUESTIONQUESTIONQUESTION OFOFOFOFFFFF QUANTUMQUANTUMQUANTUMQUANTUM OFOFOFOF COMPENSATCOMPENSATCOMPENSATCOMPENSATTIONTIONTIONTION

7.7.7.7. In tthe present case, the deceased wwas found to be about 60 yearss of age at the time oof the accident. Since no reliablee documentary or oral evidence wasw adduced to estaablish his actual income, the leaarned Tribunal rightly assessed his earnings on thee basis of the minimum wagess notified for an unskilled worrker prevailing on thhe date of the accident. The learrned Tribunal further extended the benefit of 10% addition towards future prospeccts in conformity with the law laidl down by the Hoon’ble Supreme Court in “Natio“Natio“Natio“Natioonalonalonalonal InsuranceInsuranceInsuranceInsurance CompanyCompanyCompanyCompany LimitedLimitedLimitedLimiteddddd v.v.v.v. PranayPranayPranayPranaySethiSethiSethiSethiandandandandndndndndothers,”others,”others,”others,”2017201720172017(16)(16)(16)(16)SCCSCCSCCSCC680.680.680.680. Furrther, while computing the loss oof dependency, the learned Tribuunal applied the muultiplier of ‘9’ having regard to the age of the deceased, in accordance withh the principles enunciated in “Sarla“Sarla“Sarla“Sarla VermaVermaVermaVerma v.v.v.v. DelhiDelhiDelhiDelhi TranspTranspTranspTranspportportportport Corporation,”Corporation,”Corporation,”Corporation,” 2020092020092200922009 (6)(6)(6)(6) SCCSCCSCCSCC 121.121.121.121. The claimantts were also awarded compensattion under the convventional heads, including cons ortium, in terms of the judgmment rendered in “M“M“M“MMagmaMagmaMagmaMagma GeneralGeneralGeneralGeneral InsuranceInsuranceInsuranceInsurance ComComComCommpanympanympanympany LimitedLimitedLimitedLimited v.v.v.v. NanuNanuNanuNanu RamRamRamRam andandaaandandaa others,”others,”others,”others,” 2018201820182018 (1(1(1(118)18)18)18) SCCSCCSCCSCC 130.130.130.130. Learned counsel ffor the appellant has been unablee to point out any material irregularity, perversityy or manifest error either in the assessment of inncome or in the methodology a dopted by the learned Tribunal for computation of compensation. The award of commpensation has been determinedd in

MOHMED ATIK 2026.07.02 16:46 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment 5 FAO NO.3040 OF 20024 (O&M) consonance witth the settled principles goverrning motor accident claims and,a therefore, does nnot call for any interference by thhis Court. QUESTIONQUESTIONQUESTIONQUESTION OFOFOFOFFFFF RECOVERYRECOVERYRECOVERYRECOVERY RIGHTSRIGHTSRIGHTSRIGHTS 8.8.8.8. Thee primary issue that arises for coonsideration in the present appeaal is with regard to thhe grant of recovery rights in faavour of the Insurance Companyy. A perusal of the impugned award reveals that the learned Tribunal had grannted recovery rights solely on the premise that the oowner of the offending vehicle wasw not shown to bee possessing a valid permit on tthe date of the accident. Howevver, pursuant to thee order passed by this Court permitting the appellant to lead additional evideence and directing reconsideraation of Issue No.3, the appelllant produced on record public documents, nammely the Goods Carriage Permmit, Authorization CCertificate of National Permit aand the Circular dated 30.09.20021 issued by the Miinistry of Road Transport and Hiighways.

Eveen as per the report submitteed by the learned Tribunal uppon remand, clearly records a finding that the permmit relating to the offending vehiicle was valid fromm 27.10.2020 to 26.10.2025. It has further been noticed that the authorization fo r operation of the vehicle stood protected by virtue of the Circuular dated 30.09.20221, whereby the validity of transport-related documents wasw extended up to 31.10.2021 owing to the Covidd-19 pandemic. Since the acciddent occurred on 29.110.2021, the learned Tribunal whhile submitting its report concludded that the offendinng vehicle was being plied undeer a valid and subsisting permitt on the relevant datee. 8.18.18.18.1 Furrther, what is of significance is that despite adequate opportunnity, the Insurance CCompany neither produced any evidence nor led any materiall to MOHMED ATIK 2026.07.02 16:46 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment 6 FAO NO.3040 OF 20024 (O&M)

rebut the authennticity, validity or legal effect oof the aforesaid documents. It isi a settled proposittion of law that the burden of establishing breach of pollicy conditions rests squarely upon the insurer. Mer e pleading or assertion of violattion is insufficient; rather, the insurer is required to prove a conscious, willful anda fundamental breeach attributable to the insured. AAdditionally, in NationalNationalNationalNational InsuranInsuranInsuraInsuraanceanceanceance CompanyCompanyCompanyCompany LimitLimitLimitLimititediteditedited v.v.v.v. SwaranSwaranSwaranSwaran SinghSinghSinghSingh andandandand othersothersothersothersrs,rs,rs,rs, 2004200420042004 (3)(3)(3)(3) SCCSCCSCCSCC 297,297297297 the Hon’’ble Supreme Court authoritatively held that the oonus to establish breach of pollicy conditions is up on the Insurance Company. Thee same principle has been reiteraated in NationalNationalNationalNational InsuInsuInsuInsuuranceuranceuranceurance CompanyCompanyCompanyCompany LimitedLimitedLimitedLimited v.v.v.v. ChaChaChaChaallaallaallaalla BharathammaBharathammaBharathammaBharathamma andandandand others,others,others,others, 200420042020200420042020 (8)(8)(8)(8) SCCSCCSCCSCC 517517517517 annd PappuPappuPappuPappu andandandand othersothersothersothers v.v.v.v. VinodVinodVinodVinod KuKuKumarKumarKuKuKumarKumar LambaLambaLambaLamba andandandand another,another,another,another, 20182018201820188888 (3)(3)(3)(3) SCCSCCSCCSCC 208,208,208,208, wherrein it was held that recovery rights can be conferred upon the insurer only upoon satisfactory proof of violationn of the terms and conditions of the policy.

8.28.28.28.2 In the case at hand, the additioonal evidence brought on reccord conclusively esttablishes that the offending vehiicle was covered by a valid perrmit on the date of the accident. In the absence oof any rebuttal evidence from the Insurance Comppany, the very basis on which reecovery rights were granted by the learned Tribunaal stands demolished. Consequenntly, the finding recorded on Isssue No.3 holding thhe insured guilty of breach off policy conditions and conferrring recovery rights uupon the Insurance Company cannnot be sustained and is liable too be set aside. CONCLUSIONCONCLUSIONCONCLUSIONCONCLUSIONN 9.9.9.9. Acccordingly, the appeal is parrtly allowed. The award daated 18.04.2024 passsed by the learned Motor Acccident Claims Tribunal, Karnall is MOHMED ATIK 2026.07.02 16:46 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment 7 FAO NO.3040 OF 20024 (O&M) modified to thee extent that the direction grantting recovery rights to responddent No.3-Insurance Company against the appellannt-owner is set aside. The findings recorded by thhe Tribunal regarding negliggence, liability and quantum of compensation aare affirmed. Respondent No.3--Insurance Company shall remmain liable to satisfyy the award in terms of the insuurance policy without any rightt of recovery againstt the appellant-owner. 10. Pennding miscellaneous application((s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. (HARKESH(HARKESH(HARKESH(HARKESH MANUJA)MANUJA)MANUJA)MANUJA)

JulyJulyJulyJuly 02, 2026202202202 JUDGEJUDGEJUDGEJUDGE Atik Wheether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Wheether reportable Yes/No MOHMED ATIK 2026.07.02 16:46 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment

1 FAO NO.3040 OF 20024 (O&M) ININININ THETHETHETHE HIGHHIGHHIGHHIGH COURTCOURTCOURTCOURT OFOFOFOF PUNJAPUNJAPUNJAPUNJAABABABAB ANDANDANDAND HARYANAHARYANAHARYANAHARYANA ATATATAT CHANDIGACHANDIGACHANDIGACHANDIGAARHARHARHARH FAOFAOFAOFAO No.3No.No.No.3040304030403040 ofofofof 2024202020 (O&M)(O&M)(O&M)(O&M) VISHALVISHALVISHALVISHAL KOHLKOHLKOHLKOHLLILILILI …Appellant…Appe…Appe…Appellantllantllant VsVsVsVs

USHAUSHAUSHAUSHA DEVIDEVIDEVIDEVI ANANANANNDNDNDND OTHERSOTHERSOTHERSOTHERS …Respondents…Respondent…Respondent…Respondent 1 TheTheTheThe datedatedatedate wwhenwwhenwwhenwwhen thethethethe judgmentjudgmentjudgmentjudgment waswaswaswas reservedreservedreservedreservedd 27.0.0.0.05.2022026202202 2 TheTheTheThe datedatedatedate wwhenwwhenwwhenwwhen thethethethe judgmentjudgmentjudgmentjudgment isisisis pronouncepronouncepronouncepronounce d 02.0.0.0.07.2026.2026.2026.2026 3 TheTheTheThe datedatedatedate wwhenwwhenwwhenwwhen thethethethe judgmentjudgmentjudgmentjudgment isisisis uploadeduploadeduploadeduploaded ooononooonon thethethethe websitewebsitewebsitewebsite 02.0.0.0.07.2026.2026.2026.2026 4 WhetherWhetherWhetherWhether oonlyoonlyoonlyoonly operativeoperativeoperativeoperative partpartpartpart ofofofof thethethethe judgmejudgmejudgmejudgmeentententent isisisis FullFullFullFull pronouncepronouncepronouncepronounceedededed orororor whetherwhetherwhetherwhether thethethethe fullfullfullfull judgmentjudgmentjudgmentjudgment iiisisiiisis pronouncedpronouncedpronouncedpronounced 5 TheTheTheThe delaydelaydelaydelayy,y,,, ifififif any,any,any,any, ofofofof thethethethe pronouncementpronouncementpronouncementpronouncement ooooffff fullfullfullfull NotNotNotNot applicableapplicableapplicableapplicable judgment,judgment,judgment,judgment,,, andandandand reasonsreasonsreasonsreasons thereof.thereof.thereof.thereof.

CORAM:CORAM:CORAM:CORAM: HONHONHONHONN'BLEN'BLEN'BLEN'BLEMR.MR.MR.MR.JUSTICEJUSTICEJUSTICEJUSTICEHARKESHHARKESHHARKESHHARKESHHHHHMANUJAMANUJMANUJMANUJ Present: Mr . Ashwani Arora, Advocate and Mr . Vipul Sharma, Advocate for the appellant. Mr . R.C. Kapoor, Advocate for respondent No.6/Insurance Commpany. **** HARKESHHARKESHHARKESHHARKESHMAMAMAMAANUJA,ANUJA,ANUJA,ANUJA,J.J.J.J. 1.1.1.1. The preseent appeal has been preferred byy the appellant-owner of offendding vehicle bearingg registration No.PB-08CX-5 417 assailing the award daated 18.04.2024 passsed by the learned Motor A ccident Claims Tribunal, Karnnal, whereby compeensation of ₹7,72,300/- along wwith interest @ 8% per annum wasw awarded on acccount of death of Kapil Deev Goswami and while directting respondent No.33-Insurance Company to satisfyy the award, recovery rights werew granted against tthe owner on the ground that thee offending vehicle was being pllied without a valid ppermit. BRIEFBRIEFBRIEFBRIEF FACTSFACTSFACTSFACTS 2.2.2.2. Thee claim petition arose out of an accident dated 29.10.2021 wherrein Kapil Dev Goswwami suffered fatal injuries afteer being hit by milk tanker bearring MOHMED ATIK 2026.07.02 16:46 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment 2 FAO NO.3040 OF 20024 (O&M)

registration Noo.PB-08CX-5417. The learned Tribunal, upon appreciation of evidence led byy the parties, held that the acccident occurred due to rash anda negligent drivinng of respondent No.1-driverr and awarded compensation of ₹7,72,300/- to thhe claimants. Though the learnedd Tribunal held that the vehicle wasw duly insured andd the driver possessed a valid drriving licence, recovery rights werew granted to the innsurer on the premise that the oowner of the offending vehicle wasw not possessing a valid permit on the date off accident. Aggrieved thereof, the present appeal wwas filed by the owner. 3.3.3.3. Durring pendency of the appeal, thhe appellant moved an applicattion seeking permission to lead additional evidence bby producing:- (i) Goods Carriage Permit issued by the State of Punjab valid frrom 27.10.2020 to 26.10.2025; (ii) Authorization Certificate of NNational Permit issued under RuleR 87((2) of the Central Motor Vehicless Rules, 1989; and (iii)) Circular dated 30.09.2021 iissued by the Ministry of Rooad Traansport and Highways extendingg validity of vehicle documentss in vieww of the Covid-19 pandemic. Vidde order dated 13.02.2026, this Court allowed the application anda remitted Issue NNo.3 to the Tribunal for examinattion afresh.

4.4.4.4. Purrsuant to the aforesaid order, the Tribunal recorded additioonal evidence and ssubmitted its report. The learnned Tribunal noticed that Ex.R6 (Permit) was vallid from 27.10.2020 to 26.10.20225. Ex.R7 established authorizattion to ply throughouut the territory of India and Ex. R8 evidenced extension of validdity of transport doocuments upto 31.10.2021. Thhe learned Tribunal categoricaally MOHMED ATIK 2026.07.02 16:46 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment 3 FAO NO.3040 OF 20024 (O&M) concluded that oon the date of accident i.e. 29.110.2021, the offending vehicle wasw being operated under a valid permit and there was no violation of the terms anda conditions of thhe insurance policy. The Insurrance Company failed to lead anya rebuttal evidenc e against the said documents. DISCUSSIONDISCUSSIONDISCUSSIONDISCUSSION AANDAANDAANDAAND REASONINGREASONINGREASONINGREASONING 5.5.5.5. I h ave heard learned counsel for tthe parties and perused the papper-book of the casee. QUESTIONQUESTIONQUESTIONQUESTION OFOFOFOFFFFF NEGLIGENCENEGLIGENCENEGLIGENCENEGLIGENCE

6.6.6.6. Thee findings recorded by the leearned Tribunal on the aspect of negligence do nnot warrant any interference by tthis Court. The testimony of PWW-2 Raja Goswami, who claims to be an eye-wittness to the occurrence, remainned consistent, cogeent and trustworthy throughoutt. His ocular version stands dulyd corroborated bby the contemporaneous recoord, namely FIR No.373 daated 29.10.2021, thee report submitted under Sectiion 173 Cr.P.C. and the crimiinal proceedings inittiated against respondent No.1-ddriver in respect of the accidentt in question. 6.16.16.16.1 Siggnificantly, respondent No.1-ddriver, despite having the bestb opportunity to c ontrovert the allegations levelledd against him, chose not to step intoi the witness boxx. In the absence of any expllanation regarding the mannerr of occurrence, the learned Tribunal was justifiedd in drawing an adverse inferennce against him. It is settled principle of law thhat proceedings before the Mootor Accident Claimms Tribunal are summary in natuure and strict rules of evidence are not required to be applied. The issue of negliigence is to be determined on the touchstone of ppreponderance of probabilities and not on the standard of prroof MOHMED ATIK 2026.07.02 16:46 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment 4 FAO NO.3040 OF 20024 (O&M)

applicable in crriminal trials. In view of the afforesaid evidence and settled leegal position, this CCourt finds no infirmity in the cconclusion reached by the learnned Tribunal that thee accident occurred on account oof rash and negligent driving of the offending vehiclle by respondent No.1. Accordinngly, the findings returned on Isssue No.1 are affirmeed. QUESTIONQUESTIONQUESTIONQUESTION OFOFOFOFFFFF QUANTUMQUANTUMQUANTUMQUANTUM OFOFOFOF COMPENSATCOMPENSATCOMPENSATCOMPENSATTIONTIONTIONTION

7.7.7.7. In tthe present case, the deceased wwas found to be about 60 yearss of age at the time oof the accident. Since no reliablee documentary or oral evidence wasw adduced to estaablish his actual income, the leaarned Tribunal rightly assessed his earnings on thee basis of the minimum wagess notified for an unskilled worrker prevailing on thhe date of the accident. The learrned Tribunal further extended the benefit of 10% addition towards future prospeccts in conformity with the law laidl down by the Hoon’ble Supreme Court in “Natio“Natio“Natio“Natioonalonalonalonal InsuranceInsuranceInsuranceInsurance CompanyCompanyCompanyCompany LimitedLimitedLimitedLimiteddddd v.v.v.v. PranayPranayPranayPranaySethiSethiSethiSethiandandandandndndndndothers,”others,”others,”others,”2017201720172017(16)(16)(16)(16)SCCSCCSCCSCC680.680.680.680. Furrther, while computing the loss oof dependency, the learned Tribuunal applied the muultiplier of ‘9’ having regard to the age of the deceased, in accordance withh the principles enunciated in “Sarla“Sarla“Sarla“Sarla VermaVermaVermaVerma v.v.v.v. DelhiDelhiDelhiDelhi TranspTranspTranspTranspportportportport Corporation,”Corporation,”Corporation,”Corporation,” 2020092020092200922009 (6)(6)(6)(6) SCCSCCSCCSCC 121.121.121.121. The claimantts were also awarded compensattion under the convventional heads, including cons ortium, in terms of the judgmment rendered in “M“M“M“MMagmaMagmaMagmaMagma GeneralGeneralGeneralGeneral InsuranceInsuranceInsuranceInsurance ComComComCommpanympanympanympany LimitedLimitedLimitedLimited v.v.v.v. NanuNanuNanuNanu RamRamRamRam andandaaandandaa others,”others,”others,”others,” 2018201820182018 (1(1(1(118)18)18)18) SCCSCCSCCSCC 130.130.130.130. Learned counsel ffor the appellant has been unablee to point out any material irregularity, perversityy or manifest error either in the assessment of inncome or in the methodology a dopted by the learned Tribunal for computation of compensation. The award of commpensation has been determinedd in

MOHMED ATIK 2026.07.02 16:46 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment 5 FAO NO.3040 OF 20024 (O&M) consonance witth the settled principles goverrning motor accident claims and,a therefore, does nnot call for any interference by thhis Court. QUESTIONQUESTIONQUESTIONQUESTION OFOFOFOFFFFF RECOVERYRECOVERYRECOVERYRECOVERY RIGHTSRIGHTSRIGHTSRIGHTS 8.8.8.8. Thee primary issue that arises for coonsideration in the present appeaal is with regard to thhe grant of recovery rights in faavour of the Insurance Companyy. A perusal of the impugned award reveals that the learned Tribunal had grannted recovery rights solely on the premise that the oowner of the offending vehicle wasw not shown to bee possessing a valid permit on tthe date of the accident. Howevver, pursuant to thee order passed by this Court permitting the appellant to lead additional evideence and directing reconsideraation of Issue No.3, the appelllant produced on record public documents, nammely the Goods Carriage Permmit, Authorization CCertificate of National Permit aand the Circular dated 30.09.20021 issued by the Miinistry of Road Transport and Hiighways.

Eveen as per the report submitteed by the learned Tribunal uppon remand, clearly records a finding that the permmit relating to the offending vehiicle was valid fromm 27.10.2020 to 26.10.2025. It has further been noticed that the authorization fo r operation of the vehicle stood protected by virtue of the Circuular dated 30.09.20221, whereby the validity of transport-related documents wasw extended up to 31.10.2021 owing to the Covidd-19 pandemic. Since the acciddent occurred on 29.110.2021, the learned Tribunal whhile submitting its report concludded that the offendinng vehicle was being plied undeer a valid and subsisting permitt on the relevant datee. 8.18.18.18.1 Furrther, what is of significance is that despite adequate opportunnity, the Insurance CCompany neither produced any evidence nor led any materiall to MOHMED ATIK 2026.07.02 16:46 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment 6 FAO NO.3040 OF 20024 (O&M)

rebut the authennticity, validity or legal effect oof the aforesaid documents. It isi a settled proposittion of law that the burden of establishing breach of pollicy conditions rests squarely upon the insurer. Mer e pleading or assertion of violattion is insufficient; rather, the insurer is required to prove a conscious, willful anda fundamental breeach attributable to the insured. AAdditionally, in NationalNationalNationalNational InsuranInsuranInsuraInsuraanceanceanceance CompanyCompanyCompanyCompany LimitLimitLimitLimititediteditedited v.v.v.v. SwaranSwaranSwaranSwaran SinghSinghSinghSingh andandandand othersothersothersothersrs,rs,rs,rs, 2004200420042004 (3)(3)(3)(3) SCCSCCSCCSCC 297,297297297 the Hon’’ble Supreme Court authoritatively held that the oonus to establish breach of pollicy conditions is up on the Insurance Company. Thee same principle has been reiteraated in NationalNationalNationalNational InsuInsuInsuInsuuranceuranceuranceurance CompanyCompanyCompanyCompany LimitedLimitedLimitedLimited v.v.v.v. ChaChaChaChaallaallaallaalla BharathammaBharathammaBharathammaBharathamma andandandand others,others,others,others, 200420042020200420042020 (8)(8)(8)(8) SCCSCCSCCSCC 517517517517 annd PappuPappuPappuPappu andandandand othersothersothersothers v.v.v.v. VinodVinodVinodVinod KuKuKumarKumarKuKuKumarKumar LambaLambaLambaLamba andandandand another,another,another,another, 20182018201820188888 (3)(3)(3)(3) SCCSCCSCCSCC 208,208,208,208, wherrein it was held that recovery rights can be conferred upon the insurer only upoon satisfactory proof of violationn of the terms and conditions of the policy.

8.28.28.28.2 In the case at hand, the additioonal evidence brought on reccord conclusively esttablishes that the offending vehiicle was covered by a valid perrmit on the date of the accident. In the absence oof any rebuttal evidence from the Insurance Comppany, the very basis on which reecovery rights were granted by the learned Tribunaal stands demolished. Consequenntly, the finding recorded on Isssue No.3 holding thhe insured guilty of breach off policy conditions and conferrring recovery rights uupon the Insurance Company cannnot be sustained and is liable too be set aside. CONCLUSIONCONCLUSIONCONCLUSIONCONCLUSIONN 9.9.9.9. Acccordingly, the appeal is parrtly allowed. The award daated 18.04.2024 passsed by the learned Motor Acccident Claims Tribunal, Karnall is MOHMED ATIK 2026.07.02 16:46 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment 7 FAO NO.3040 OF 20024 (O&M) modified to thee extent that the direction grantting recovery rights to responddent No.3-Insurance Company against the appellannt-owner is set aside. The findings recorded by thhe Tribunal regarding negliggence, liability and quantum of compensation aare affirmed. Respondent No.3--Insurance Company shall remmain liable to satisfyy the award in terms of the insuurance policy without any rightt of recovery againstt the appellant-owner. 10. Pennding miscellaneous application((s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. (HARKESH(HARKESH(HARKESH(HARKESH MANUJA)MANUJA)MANUJA)MANUJA)

JulyJulyJulyJuly 02, 2026202202202 JUDGEJUDGEJUDGEJUDGE Atik Wheether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Wheether reportable Yes/No MOHMED ATIK 2026.07.02 16:46 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment