FAO No. 2059 of 2008 (1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No. 2059 of 2008 Date of Decision: 30.7.2009 National Insurance Company Limited ......Appellant Versus Sunil Kumar and others .......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA. 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present: Shri D.P. Gupta, Advocate, for the appellant. HEMANT GUPTA, J. (Oral). Challenge in the present appeal is to the Award rendered by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bhiwani (for short hereinafter referred to as `the Tribunal'), on 11.4.2008, awarding compensation of Rs.1,78,000/- along with interest @7% p.a., from the date of filing of the petition till the date of payment of compensation, on account of injuries suffered by the claimant in a motor vehicular accident. Respondent-Sunil Kumar, while travelling in Tata Sumo bearing registration No. HR-613529 on 26.7.2006, suffered multiple injuries when the driver of the said vehicle lost control of the same and hit a FAO No. 2059 of 2008 (2) tree. The driver and the owner of the vehicle filed a written statement denying the accident or that the claimant is entitled to any compensation. After considering the evidence led by the parties, the learned Tribunal found that the accident was caused by the alleged negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle and that the claimant suffered multiple injuries and awarded compensation of Rs.1,78,000/- on account of loss of income, permanent disability and under other heads. The Insurance Company has filed the present appeal challenging the Award of the learned Tribunal. Learned counsel for the appellant has vehemently argued that the finding recorded by the learned Tribunal on the question of negligence is erroneous and such finding is not permissible on the basis of evidence led. Learned counsel has also argued that the amount of compensation awarded is excessive and has no reasonable nexus with the injuries suffered by the claimant. Having heard learned counsel for the appellant at some length, I do not find any merit in the argument raised by the learned counsel for the appellant. The Insurance Company cannot be permitted to dispute either the finding of the negligent driving by the driver of the insured offending vehicle or that the compensation awarded is on the higher side. The Insurance Company has limited defences, such as, not holding a valid driving licence by the driver of the offending vehicle or lack of permit etc.. Neither the finding of negligence nor the consequential compensation can be challenged by the Insurance Company in appeal. In view thereof, I do not find any patent illegality or material FAO No. 2059 of 2008 (3) irregularity in the impugned Award passed by the learned Tribunal, which may warrant interference by this Court in the present appeal. Hence, the present appeal is dismissed. (HEMANT GUPTA) JUDGE 30.7.2009 ds