IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.5196 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision : 29.10.2009 ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co.Ltd. … Petitioner Versus Harjeet Kaur and others …Respondents CORAM : HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE A.N.JINDAL Present: Mrs.Vandanaa Malhotra, Advocate for the appellant. A.N.Jindal, J. (Oral) This appeal is directed against the award dated 5.8.2009 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kurukshetra, whereby claimant- respondents No.1 and 2 were awarded compensation to the tune of Rs.3,67000/- along with interest at the rate of 9 % per annum on account of death of Tajinder Singh in a motor vehicle accident. The accident took place when the deceased along with driver was travelling in the car bearing registration No.PB-10-BM-T-2950 from Delhi to Kapurthala. The Insurance company as well as the other respondents contested the claim petition. They denied the allegations. Insurance Company also submitted that Tajinder Singh being a passenger in the car in question was not covered by the terms of the policy of insurance From the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed:- “1. Whether Tajinder Singh, since deceased, had died on account of use of vehicle, Indica car bearing registration No.Pb-10-BM-T-2950 on a public way? OPP 2. If issue No.1 is proved, to what amount of compensation, the petitioners are entitled and from whom? OPP 3. Whether the claimants have no locus standi to file and maintain the present claim petition? OPR 4. Whether the claim petition is not maintainable under section 163-A of the Motor Vehicle Act? OPR 5. Relief.” FAO No.5196 of 2009 (O&M) Ultimately, learned Tribunal accepted the application. The prime point made before me, is whether Tajinder Singh was passenger in the vehicle and was not covered by the policy of insurance? The company has also not led any evidence to establish that Tajinder Singh was a passenger in the vehicle. Claimant-father of the deceased while appearing in the witness box, has no where stated that Tajinder Singh was travelling as a passenger in the car. The car was private carrier with the sitting capacity of ten persons and was comprehensively insured. There was extra premium paid for the driver and owner of the vehicle separately and it could not be made out from the policy marked R-3 that the persons other than driver travelling in the car were not covered. Learned counsel for the appellant has referred to the judgment in case of Bhagyalakshmi and others Vs. United Insurance Company Ltd. (2009) 7 SCC, 148. The same is not applicable to the facts of the present case. Even the company has also not proved the policy in accordance with law. As such finding no merit in this appeal, the same is dismissed in limine. [ A.N.Jindal ] Judge 29.10.2009 sd 2