Charanjeet Kaur And Others vs Nirmal Singh And Others

FAO-1576-2001 (O&M) & FAO-750-2001 (O&M)

- 1 -

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
209

Date of decision: 27.08.2026
1. FAO-1576-2001
CHARANJEET KAUR AND OTHERS ....Appellants
Versus
NIRMAL SINGH AND OTHERS ...Respondents
2. FAO-750-2001
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. ....Appellants
Versus
CHARANJEET KAUR AND OTHERS ...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHVIR SINGH RATHOR
Present : Mr. Abhishek Goyal, Advocate and
Mr.Pardeep Goyal, Advocate
for the appellant-insurance company in FAO-750-2001 and
for respondent No.3 in FAO-1576-2001.
Mr. Nipun Bhardwaj, Advocate for
respondent No.7 in FAO-750-2001.
Mr. Siddharth Singh, Advocate (Amicus curiae) for appellants in
FAO-1576-2001 and for respondents No.1 to 5 in FAO-750-2001.
Notice to respondents No.1 and 2 in
FAO-1576-2001 has been dispensed with.
Service of respondent No.6 has been dispensed with
vide order dated 16.08.2016 in FAO-750-2001.
YASHVIR SINGH RATHOR. J.(Oral)
1. The matter is being taken up in the post lunch session.
AMANDEEP GOSAIN
2026.09.02 11:20
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this
order/judgment

FAO-1576-2001 (O&M) & FAO-750-2001 (O&M)

- 2 -

2. The aforesaid two appeals have been preferred against the Award
dated 17.11.2000 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kurukshetra ( for
short “Tribunal” ) in MACT Case No. 260 of 2000 in a petition under Section
166/171 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ( for short “the Act” ). FAO-750-2001
has been preferred by the Insurance Company challenging the liability fastened
upon it by the Tribunal to satisfy the Award, whereas FAO-1576-2001 has been
preferred by the claimants seeking enhancement of compensation on account of
death of Baljit Singh in a motor vehicle accident. Vide the impugned Award, a sum
of Rs.3,27,000/- has been awarded to claimants No.1 to 4 along with interest at the
rate of 12% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till realization.
3. From the pleadings of parties, following issues were framed:-
1. Whether the accident in question took place on 10.11.99 on
account of rash and negligent driving of vehicle No.HR-46/6877
driven by respondent No.1 Nirmal Singh as alleged?OPP
2. If issue No.1 is proved the petitioner/claimants are entitled to
compensation. If so how much and from whom? OPR
3. Whether the respondent No.1 was not holding valid and
effective driving licence at the time of alleged accident?OPR.
4. Relief.
4. Thereafter, the parties led evidence in support of their case.
5. After hearing the parties and going through the material on the file,
learned Tribunal under issue No.1, held that the accident in question had taken
place on account of rash and negligent driving on the part of respondent No.1
while driving the offending truck bearing No.HR-46-6877, resulting in the death
of Baljit Singh. Under issue No.2, it was held that claimants No.1 to 4, who are
AMANDEEP GOSAIN
2026.09.02 11:20
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this
order/judgment

FAO-1576-2001 (O&M) & FAO-750-2001 (O&M)

- 3 -

the wife, minor children and mother of the deceased were held entitled to receive a
sum of Rs.3,27,000/- as compensation but it was held that claimant No.5-Manjit
Kaur, who is the sister of the deceased is not entitled to any compensation as she
was not Class-I legal heir of her brother. Under issue No.3, it was held that
respondent No.1 was having a valid and effective driving licence and all the
respondents were held liable to pay compensation jointly and severally.
7. Feeling aggrieved, FAO-750-2001 has been preferred by the
Insurance Company, while FAO-1576-2001 has been preferred by the claimants
for enhancement of compensation. The material on file has been perused and
parties have been heard.
8. Learned counsel for insurance company argued that the Tribunal has
gravely erred in holding that driver was possessing a valid and effective driving
licence and the evidence on file has been misread and misconstrued. The Award is
based on conjectures and surmises and is liable to be set aside. Learned counsel
next contended that the compensation awarded to the claimants is on the higher
side and same is liable to be reduced and he prayed that appeal in hand be
accepted and insurance company be exonerated of its liability to indemnify the
insured.
9. On the other hand, learned counsel for claimants argued that
inadequate compensation has been awarded by the Tribunal. Income of the
deceased has been assessed on the lower side to which future prospects have not
been added. The sister of the deceased was 21 years of age and she was also
dependent upon her brother and merely because she was not a class-I legal heir,
compensation cannot be denied to her as she shall be deemed to be dependent
AMANDEEP GOSAIN
2026.09.02 11:20
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this
order/judgment

FAO-1576-2001 (O&M) & FAO-750-2001 (O&M)

- 4 -

upon her brother under the Act. In support of his contentions, learned counsel has
relied upon 2009(6) SCC 121 Sarla Verma and others Vs. Delhi Transport
Corporation and Another , 2017 (16) SCC 680 National Insurance Co. Ltd Vs.
Pranay Sethi and Other , 2018 (4) R.C.R. (Civil) 333 Magma General
Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram alias Chuhru Ram & Others , (2021) 11 SCC
780 United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Satinder Kaur.
10. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.7/owner argued
that the Tribunal has appreciated the facts of the case and evidence on file in the
correct perspective while coming to the conclusion that the driver was possessing
a valid and effective driving licence and no interference in the impugned Award is
thus called for and he sought dismissal of the appeal.
Issue of liability
11. While giving finding whether the driver possessed a valid and
effective driving licence or not, learned Tribunal has held as under:-
“Learned counsel for respondent No. 3 had argued that Nirmal Singh,
respondent No. 1 driver of the offending vehicle No. HR-46/6877 was not holding
a valid and effective driving licence at the time of alleged accident and the
driving licence issued by the District Transport Officer, Amritsar, was fake and
thus the United India Insurance Company, respondent No.3 was not liable to pay
any compensation. In support of his plea learned counsel for respondent No.3
has examined Rajpal Singh Clerk of the office of District Transport Officer,
Amritsar and Sh. A. P. S. Sandhu, District Transport Officer, Amritsar. RW1
Rajpal Singh had produced before the court the summoned record pertaiing to
the period 16.4.1992 to 21.4.1992 of driving licence of respondent No.1 Nirmal
Singh which is stated to have been issued from the District Transport Officer
Amritasr. It is stated by him that driving licence, photo copy of which is Ex. R1 in
the name of Nirmal Singh was never issued by the District Transport Officer,
Amritsar. It is further stated by him that an enquiry had been conducted in their
office regarding issuance of the licences in which no fee was deposited and
regarding this non-payment of fee A Certificate, mark A was issued by their
AMANDEEP GOSAIN
2026.09.02 11:20
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this
order/judgment

FAO-1576-2001 (O&M) & FAO-750-2001 (O&M)

- 5 -

office, which bears signatures of Sh. Rajinder Singh Bhatt, Cashier and counter-
signed by the District Transport Officer. Perusal of Mark A (Ex. 4) which had
been proved by the District Transport Officer. Shri A.P.S. Sandhu, shows that
requisite fee in respect of driving licence No. 15983 dated 16.11.1992 in favour
of Nirmal Singh son of Sucha Singh had not been deposited by the licence-holder,
as per office record and on the basis of the report made by the Cashier, the
District Transport Officer had made a report that view of the report a requisite
fee had not been deposited by the licence holder and the said licence is not
genuine and has not been issued by this office. This is the ground on the basis of
which learned counsel for respondent No.3 had argued that driving licence
issued in the name of Nirmal Singh, respondent No. 1 was fake one. In cross-
examination when this witness was confronted with entry No.5983 made in the
record brought by him, he admitted that in the record endorsement has been
made in the name of Nirmal Singh son of Such Singh resident of Baba Chownk.
Beriwala, Amritsar and the same address was noted on the driving licence. Ex.
R1 and entry No.5982 bears the stamp and initials of the District Transport
Officer, Amritsar. It is also admitted by him that on entry No.5983 in the name of
Nirmal Singh respondent No. 1. there is a stamp of District Transport Officer,
which bears signatures of some officer whose signatures he failed to identify as
he had not worked with him during the period 15.4.1995. He had admitted that
as per record Nirmal Singh son of Sucha Singh was eligible to drive heavy
transport vehicle. It is also admitted by him that renewal entries with regard to
the aforesaid licence had been made by his office and these renewal entires were
entered at serial Nos.6186, 6185 and so many other entries were also made in
the register. This register was for issuance of new licence as well as for
subsequently renewal of the same but no such entry has been made from which it
could be assumed that the driving licence issued by this office was false and
bogus. This witness has admitted that no driving licence in the name of any other
person had been issued against serial No. 5893 for heavy transport vehicle. Thus
from his statement it is clear that name of respondent No. 1. was mentioned in
the relevant register and his driving licence has been issued by the authority. It
has also come that the Motor Vehicles Authorities had been making renewal
entries with regard to the renewal licences on this register which were stated to
be containing fake driving licences. The genuineness of the driving licence had
been challenged as no prescribed fee had been deposited in the Govt. Treasury.
25. RW2 A.P.S. Santhu, District Transport Officer, Amritsar had stated that
he had brought the register regarding issuance of the driving licences on
16.4.1992 with serials No. 5801 to 6186 but has stated that the same had not
AMANDEEP GOSAIN
2026.09.02 11:20
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this
order/judgment

FAO-1576-2001 (O&M) & FAO-750-2001 (O&M)

- 6 -

been prepared by him. He further deposed that their office apprehended
tampering of some driving licences and therefore, issued a list regarding
doubtful driving licences which was mark RB and the register brought by him
was regarding the doubtful cases. He further stated that in the list. Ex.RD at
serial No.27, he had also made a report with regard to non-deposit of the fee of
the licence issued in the name of Nirmal Singh respondent No.1 and this
report/certificate Ex.R4 has been duly signed by him. In the cross-examination he
has admitted to have issued certificate Ex. R4, regarding non-depositing of the
fee by respondent No. 1, on the basis of the report of the cashier and Sectional
Officer and the report bears Signature. He had admitted that there was an entry
at Serial No.5983 in the name of Nirmal Singh son of Sucha Singh. He stated that
he cannot say whether above said driving licence issued in the name of Nirmal
Singh, respondent No 1. was genuine or fake one. Thus from his statement, it is
clear that he was not sure about fakeness or genuineness of the driving licence.
When all the particulars in the name of respondent No. 1. Nirmal Singh were
mentioned in the register maintained by the office in daily working then the plea
regarding genuineness of the driving licence cannot be entertained. It was the
duty of the District Transport Authority to have established beyond doubt that
driving licence. Ex.R1 issued in the name of respondent No.1 was not genuine
and was fake one. Perusal of driving licence. Ex. R1 shows that the same had
been renewed w.e.f. 18.8.1998 to 17.8.2001 by the Regional Transport Authority,
Ambala and when this accident had taken place, respondent No.1 was holding a
renewed driving licence. Thus, on the alleged date of accident, respondent No.1
cannot be said to be holding a fake driving licence. In Authority, National
Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Such Singh and others. 1994(1) Punjab Law
Reporter 140 it has been held by the Double Bench of our own Hon'ble High
Court that, if a licence renewed though originally it was fake licence it gets its
validity. The Insurance Company would be able to reimburse the insured if
accident was caused by the driver and employee of the insured possessing a
licence which was duly renewed. But the said findings of the Double Bench of
our Hon,ble High Court in the case Such Singh's (Supra) have been reversed by
the Full Bench of our own Hon’ble High Court in case National Insurance Co.
Ltd. Vs. Smt. Santro Devi and others 1996 (3) Punjab Law Reporter 667 wherein
it has been held that the insured bonafidely believing in the validity of a forged
driving licence employing the holder of a fake driving licence renewed by a
competent authority, would not amount to violation of the conditions of contract
or of insurance policy. It would not be violating either conditions of indemnity or
the Insurance policy or the contract or violation of any statutory provisions.
AMANDEEP GOSAIN
2026.09.02 11:20
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this
order/judgment

FAO-1576-2001 (O&M) & FAO-750-2001 (O&M)

- 7 -

Under these circumstances merely employing a driver with a forged driving
licence would not absolve the insurer of its liability. In the absence of policy of
the provisions of the Act by the insured, the insurance company would not be
discharged of its liability from indemnifying the insurer or of its statutory
liability to third party or its contractual liability to third party. But in authority
National Insurance Company Ltd. V. Santo Devi and others. 1998 ACJ 116 the
Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that the Insurance Company cannot refuse
to meet its liability qua third party for any act or omission bonafidely or
otherwise committed by the insured or its liability inasmuch as third party, for
whose benefit the insurance has been provided is not a privy to any breach as
being not in control of the act or conduct of the insured or its employee or
insurer. Thus, the insurance company cannot refuse to meet its liability qua third
party". Thus, in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Santro Devi's case' (Supra). I am of the view that Insurance Company cannot
absolve from its liability. This issue is decided accordingly in favour of the
claimant and against the respondent No.3.”
12. As such, Insurance Company led evidence to the effect that requisite
fee while obtaining driving licence bearing No.5983 dated 16.11.1992 had not
been deposited in the office of the Licensing Authority and as per version of
Insurance Company, the driving licence had not been issued by the said authority
and it was fake. To prove this fact, insurance company had examined RW1-Rajpal
Singh and RW2 A.P.S. Sandhu, District Transport Officer. However, RW2 has
admitted that there is an entry at Serial No.5983 in the driving licence issuing
register in the name of respondent No.1-Nirmal Singh and he cannot say whether
the said driving licence issued in favour of respondent No.1-Nirmal Singh was
genuine or fake, which shows that RW2 was not sure whether the driving licence
is genuine or fake. Learned Tribunal thus rightly observed that when all the
particulars in the name of respondent No.1-Nirmal Singh had been mentioned in
the register maintained by the office, the plea regarding genuineness of the driving
licence cannot be entertained and it was the duty of District Transport Authority to
AMANDEEP GOSAIN
2026.09.02 11:20
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this
order/judgment

FAO-1576-2001 (O&M) & FAO-750-2001 (O&M)

- 8 -

have established beyond doubt that driving licence Ex. R1 issued in favour of
respondent No.1-Nirmal Singh was not genuine and was fake. The licence Ex. R1
had been subsequently renewed by RTA, Ambala from 18.08.1998 to 17.08.2001,
when the accident took place. As such, it is established that relevant entry had
been made in the name of respondent No.1-Nirmal Singh, while issuing driving
licence and Tribunal thus rightly came to the conclusion that the driving licence
relied upon by respondent No.1 was genuine and not fake and no ground to
interfere in the findings arrived at by the learned Tribunal is made out and finding
on Issue No.3 is affirmed.
13. However, even if it is assumed that the driving licence produced by
the driver was fake, still insurance company is required to establish willful breach
of terms and conditions of the insurance policy by the insured before it can be
exonerated of the liability to indemnify the insured. Hon’ble Supreme Court in
2022 ACJ 1868, Rishi Pal Singh Versus New India Assurance Company Limited
and others, has held that owner of the vehicle is expected to check driving skills
of the driver and not to run to the licensing authority to verify genuineness of the
driving licence before appointing a driver and therefore, once the owner is
satisfied that driver is competent to drive the vehicle, it is not expected from him
to verify genuineness of the driving licence issued to the driver and the direction
of ‘pay and recover’ given by the High Court was set aside and it was held that
Insurance Company is liable to indemnify the insured and it cannot recover the
amount from the owner/insured. Recently, Hon’ble Supreme Court in Law Finder
Doc ID # 2790918, Hind Samachar Ltd. (Delhi Unit) Versus National Insurance
Company Ltd. And others, has also held that owner of the vehicle is not expected
AMANDEEP GOSAIN
2026.09.02 11:20
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this
order/judgment

FAO-1576-2001 (O&M) & FAO-750-2001 (O&M)

- 9 -

to verify the authenticity of the driving licence from the licensing authority and he
can only rely upon the licence produced by the prospective driver seeking
employment. In case, Insurance Company seeks to avoid liability or to get “pay
and recover rights” against the insured/owner on the ground of driving licence
being fake, the Insurance Company must establish that the breach was on the part
of the insured, meaning thereby, the insured had deliberately committed a breach
by entrusting the vehicle to a driver who had a fake driving licence or that the
owner did not employ due diligence at the time of handing over the vehicle. It has
been further held that in the absence of pleading or substantiation that owner
allowed the driver to drive a vehicle knowing the licence to be fake, or failed to
employ due diligence in the driver’s employment/entrustment, the High Court
erred in issuing pay and recover directions against the insured-owner. It has been
further held that Insurance Company must prove the willful breach of the policy
condition i.e. entrusting the vehicle to a driver without a valid licence by the
insured in case it wants right of recovery against the insured, even if the driver’s
licence is fake. Looked from any angle, insurance company is liable to indemnify
the insured and there is no reason to interfere with the findings arrived at by the
learned Tribunal in this regard.
ANALYSIS AND ASSESSMENT OF COMPENSATION IN FAO-1576-2001 ,
CHARANJEET KAUR VS. NIRMAL SINGH AND OTHERS:-
14. Coming to the assessment of compensation, the term `just
compensation’ has been elaborated by Hon’ble Supreme Court in 2009(1) RCR
(Civil) 867 (SC), Syed Basheer Ahamed and Others Vs. Mohd. Jameel and
Another , and it has been held that while assessing compensation in a motor
AMANDEEP GOSAIN
2026.09.02 11:20
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this
order/judgment

FAO-1576-2001 (O&M) & FAO-750-2001 (O&M)

- 10 -

accident claims case, the Tribunal should award compensation which appears to be
just. The expression “which appears to be just” vests a wide discretion in the
Tribunal in the matter of determination of compensation. Nevertheless, the wide
amplitude of such power does not empower the Tribunal to determine the
compensation arbitrarily, or to ignore settled principles relating to determination of
compensation. It has been further held that although the Act is a beneficial
legislation, it can neither be allowed to be used as a source of profit, nor as a
windfall to the persons affected nor should it be punitive to the persons liable to
pay compensation and that determination of compensation must be based on
certain data establishing reasonable nexus between the loss incurred by the victim
or dependents. It has been further held that misplaced sympathy, generosity and
benevolence cannot be the guiding factors for determining the compensation. As
such, compensation is required to be assessed by taking into consideration above-
said parameters.
15. Deceased was a driver and as per version of claimants, he was getting
salary of Rs.5,000/- per month. Learned Tribunal assessed his income to be
Rs.2,400/- per month. However, it is not in dispute that deceased was a truck
driver. The accident in question had taken place on 10.11.1999 and some amount
of guess work thus has to be applied while assessing the monthly income of the
deceased and his income cannot be assessed merely by treating him as a casual
labourer on the basis of minimum wages. Hon'ble Supreme Court in (2022) 1 SCC
198, Chandra alias Chander alias Chanda Ram and another Vs. Mukesh
Kumar Yadav , has held that merely because claimants are unable to produce
documentary evidence to show the monthly income of the deceased is not a
AMANDEEP GOSAIN
2026.09.02 11:20
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this
order/judgment

FAO-1576-2001 (O&M) & FAO-750-2001 (O&M)

- 11 -

ground to discard the oral evidence and in such cases, the Court is required to
ensure just compensation based on preponderance of probabilities. Minimum
wage notification may serve as a yardstick but cannot be the sole basis for
assessing the income. Moreover, it is also well settled that where the
victim/deceased belongs to unorganized sector, strict proof of income is not
mandatory and notional income can be reasonably assessed based on the social
status and facts and circumstances of the case. Accordingly, income of the
deceased is taken as Rs.3,000/- per month.
16. Tribunal has held that deceased at the time of his death was 32-33
years of age and as such, 40% amount has to be added to the monthly income of
the deceased towards future prospects in view of law laid down in Pranay Sethi’s
case (supra), which takes his income to Rs.4,200/- (Rs.3,000/- + Rs.1,200/-) .
17. Claim petition has been filed by wife, two minor children, sister and
mother. However, Tribunal has held that sister is not the Class-I legal heir and
denied compensation to her. However, Hon’ble Supreme Court in 2025 Livelaw
(SC) 309, Sadhana Tomar & Ors. Vs. Ashok Kushwaha & Ors , has held that a
legal representative is one, who suffers on account of death of a person due to
motor vehicle accident and need not necessarily be a wife, husband, parent or
child. The term legal representative under Motor Vehicles Act should not be given
a narrow interpretation to exclude those persons as claimants who were dependent
on the deceased’s income and the father and sister, being financially dependent
were legal representatives under the Act entitling them to compensation.
Accordingly, it is held that claimant No.5-Manjit Kaur, who was 21 years of age,
was also dependent upon her deceased brother.
AMANDEEP GOSAIN
2026.09.02 11:20
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this
order/judgment

FAO-1576-2001 (O&M) & FAO-750-2001 (O&M)

- 12 -

18. As such, d eceased has left behind five dependents and 1/4th of the
income has to be deducted towards personal and living expenses of deceased as
per law laid down in Sarla Verma’s case (supra) and after deducting the same,
the monthly loss of dependency comes out to Rs.3,150/- (Rs.4,200/- – Rs.1,050/-) and
the annual loss of dependency comes out to Rs.37,800/- (Rs.3,150/- × 12) to
which multiplier of 16 has to be applied in view of the guidelines laid down in
Sarla Verma’s case (supra) , and after applying the same, the total loss of
dependency comes out to Rs.6,04,800/- (Rs.37,800/- × 16) .
19. As per law laid down in Pranay Sethi’s case (supra), a sum of
Rs.70,000/- is payable towards conventional heads i.e. Rs.40,000/- towards loss of
consortium, Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate and Rs.15,000/- on account of
funeral expenses. However, the judgment in Pranay Sethi’s case (supra) was
passed in the year 2017 and taking into consideration the price index prevalent in
the year 1999 when the accident took place, claimant No.1, who is wife of
deceased is held entitled to a sum of Rs.30,000/- towards loss of consortium ,
Rs.10,000/- for funeral expenses and Rs.10,000/- for loss of estate . Likewise,
claimants No.2 to 5 are also held entitled to a sum of Rs .30,000/- each for loss of
parental and filial consortium, in view of law laid down in Nanu Ram’s case
(supra) and Satinder Kaur’s case (supra) , which takes the compensation to
Rs.7,74,800 /- .
20. Accordingly, the compensation to be awarded to the claimants is
assessed as under:-
S. No. Heads of Compensation Amount
1. Age of deceased 32-33 years
2. Monthly income of deceased Rs.3,000/-
AMANDEEP GOSAIN
2026.09.02 11:20
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this
order/judgment

FAO-1576-2001 (O&M) & FAO-750-2001 (O&M)

- 13 -

3. Future prospects @ 40% Rs.1,200/-
4. Monthly income after adding future Rs.4,200/-
prospects
5. Deduction towards personal and living Rs.1,050/-
expenses @ 1/4th
6. Monthly loss of dependency Rs.3,150/-
7. Annual loss of dependency Rs.37,800/-
8. Multiplier 16
9. Total loss of dependency Rs.6,04,800/-
10. Loss of consortium to claimant Rs.50,000/-
No.1 (wife)
Rs.1,20,000/-
11. Loss of parental and filial
consortium to claimants No.2 to
5
12. Total Compensation Rs.7,74,800/- (rounded off to
Rs.7,75,000/-)
13. Interest 9%
21. As a result of the aforesaid discussion, the appeal filed by the
Insurance Company i.e. FAO-750-2001 is hereby dismissed with no order as to
costs, while the appeal filed by the claimants i.e FAO-1576-2001 is partly
accepted with costs and claimants are held entitled to enhanced compensation of
Rs.4,48,000/- (Rs.7,75,000/- - Rs.3,27,000/- ) over and above the compensation
awarded by the Tribunal along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the
date of filing of claim petition i.e. 11.2.2000 till realization payable by respondents
No.1 to 3 jointly and severally. Out of the enhanced compensation, a sum of
Rs.40,000/- each along with proportionate interest be paid to claimants No.2 to 5,
while balance amount be paid to claimant No.1 (wife) along with proportionate
interest.
22. Registry is directed to email the authenticated copy of this judgment
AMANDEEP GOSAIN
2026.09.02 11:20
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this
order/judgment

FAO-1576-2001 (O&M) & FAO-750-2001 (O&M)

- 14 -

to the respondent Insurance Company in terms of directions issued by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in Writ Petition (Civil) No.534 of 2020 titled Bajaj Allianz
General Insurance Company Versus Union of India and others, decided on
16.03.2021 and Insurance Company shall comply with the directions as issued
under Clause (F) of the said judgment.
23. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand
disposed of.
24. Photocopy of this order be placed on the file of connected case.
(YASHVIR SINGH RATHOR)
27.08.2026 JUDGE
amandeep
Whether speaking/reasoned. : Yes/No
Whether Reportable. : Yes/No
AMANDEEP GOSAIN
2026.09.02 11:20
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this
order/judgment