IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.5106 of 2006 (O&M) Date of decision:30.05.2011 Mrs. Seema Aggarwal and others ...Appellants versus Rafiullah and others ....Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN ---- Present: Mr. Jagdish Manchanda, Advocate, for the appellants. Mr. Ravinder Arora, Advocate and Mr. Neeraj Khanna, Advocate, for the Insurance Company. ---- 1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? No. 2. To be referred to the reporters or not ? No. 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest ? No. ---- K.Kannan, J. (Oral) 1. The appeal by the claimants is on the ground that the Tribunal after assessing the compensation denied the petitioner the entitlement to the extent of 40% on the ground that the driver of the offending vehicle had not been impleaded. It was brought out through evidence that the driver, who was incidentally also the owner, had died in the accident. It is sufficient in such a case if the Insurance Company is made a party for the insurer will be the successor-in-interest under Section 155 of the Motor Vehicles Act. Section 155 reads as under:- FAO No.5106 of 2006 (O&M) - 2 - “Effect of death on certain causes of action.- Notwithstanding anything contained in Section 306 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 (39 of 1925) the death of a person in whose favour a certificate of insurance had been issued, if it occurs after the happening of an event which has given rise to a claim under the provisions of this Chapter, shall not be a bar to the survival of any cause of action arising out of the said event against his estate or against the insurer.” 2. Section 155 of the Act 1989 is brought out in content through Sections 96 and 102 of the 1939 Act. The issue relating to the liability of the insurer when the insured died was considered by this Court also in Natha Singh Versus Gurdial Singh-AIR 1982 P&H 38 and Oriental Insurance Company Limited Versus Santokh Singh- (1991) 1 AccCC 536. The Karnataka High Court held in Oriental Insurance Company Limited Versus Nargama-2005 ACJ 1534 a slight different situation where the insured had died during the pendency of the claim petition and the legal representatives had not been brought on record. The Court held that neither death of the insured nor the failure to bring the legal representatives would exonerate the Insurance Company from liability. The restriction of entitlement of the petitioner to merely 60% of the amount assessed was, therefore, not competent. The entire liability shall be borne by the Insurance Company. The award stands modified and the appeal is allowed to the above extent of making the insurer of the car viz. National Insurance Company liable at 40% FAO No.5106 of 2006 (O&M) - 3 - with interest at 7.5% and the remaining 60% in terms of the award shall be taken by the insurer of the other vehicle which was involved in the accident. (K.KANNAN) JUDGE 30.05.2011 sanjeev