Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds ₹17.71 Lakh Compensation for Death of 38-Year-Old, Rejects Insurer’s Appeal Alleging Fake Driving Licence
Case Name: New India Assurance Company Ltd. v. Harpreet Kaur and Others
Date of Judgment: October 9, 2025
Citation: FAO-5086-2018
Bench: Hon’ble Mrs. Justice Sudeépti Sharma
Held: The Punjab & Haryana High Court dismissed an appeal by New India Assurance Company challenging its liability to pay compensation of ₹17.71 lakh awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Fatehabad, for the death of a 38-year-old in a road accident. Justice Sudeépti Sharma held that the insurer failed to prove that the driver’s licence was fake or that the vehicle owner had any knowledge of such defect. The Court reiterated that under Section 149(2)(a)(ii) of the Motor Vehicles Act, an insurer must establish a willful breach of policy terms, not merely allege one. It ruled that the owner, having verified the driver’s competence and the apparent genuineness of the licence, had discharged due diligence.
Summary: The case arose from an accident on April 29, 2016, when a bus (HR-62-3765) driven rashly by Bogh Singh collided with a motorcycle, killing Narender Singh. The Tribunal had awarded ₹17.71 lakh with 7.5% interest to the claimants, fastening joint liability on the driver, owner, and insurer. The Insurance Company appealed, contending that the driver’s licence was forged and thus the insurer was not liable.
Justice Sharma examined the testimony of DTO office clerks and found that the record’s unavailability due to computerization could not establish forgery. Relying on United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Lehru (2003) 2 RCR (Civil) 278 and Pepsu Road Transport Corporation v. National Insurance Co. Ltd. (2013) 10 SCC 217, the Court held that an owner need only check that a driver holds a licence that appears genuine and that he is competent to drive. The insurer’s failure to prove willful breach meant liability remained with it.
The Court also upheld the Tribunal’s income assessment of ₹9,000 per month, adding 40% for future prospects and applying the multiplier of 15 as per Pranay Sethi and Sarla Verma, noting that compensation was neither excessive nor arbitrary.
Decision: The High Court dismissed the appeal, affirming that the insurer, driver, and owner were jointly and severally liable, with the insurer bound to indemnify the insured. The ₹25,000 statutory deposit was ordered to be refunded to the appellant.