FAO No. 5603 of 2009 -1- In the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh FAO No. 5603 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision : 6.5.2010 Surinder Kaur ... Appellant vs Darshan Lal and others .... Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Present: Mr. Paul S. Saini, Advocate, for the appellant. Mr. Diwan Adlakha, Advocate, for respondents no. 1 to 3. Ms. Shamsher Kaur, Advocate, for respondent no. 4- the insurance company. Rajesh Bindal J. The owner of the offending vehicle is in appeal before this court against the award dated 26.10.2009 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Yamuna Nagar (hereinafter to be referred as “the Tribunal”), whereby the insurance company has been absolved of the liability to pay compensation to the dependents of the pillion rider on a motorcycle. Briefly the facts as stated in the award of the learned Tribunal are that on 31.3.2008, Bachna Ram along with Harkirpal Singh, was returning from a retirement party on motorcycle no. CH-03-4574. It was being driven by Harkirpal Singh and Bachna Ram was its pillion rider. Suddenly a stray animal (Neel Gaye), came in front of the motorcycle and while saving the said stray animal, the motorcycle went out of control and struck against a culvert. Due to this, both sustained injuries on the head and also on other parts of the body and died at the spot. As the claimants were fully dependent on the deceased, they filed claim petitions, which were allowed vide award dated 26.10.2009 and the appellant/owner of the offending vehicle was held liable to pay the amount of compensation to the claimants of the pillion rider and the insurance company was absolved of its liability to pay compensation. It is this award which is impugned in the present appeal by the owner of the offending vehicle. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant in the present case is the owner of the offending vehicle. The vehicle was insured with respondent no. 4- insurance company and the policy was a package policy. The claim in the present case was by the dependents of a pillion rider on a motorcycle. The insurance policy in question was admittedly a package policy but still the FAO No. 5603 of 2009 -2- owner of vehicle was held liable to pay the compensation while absolving the insurance company. He submitted that there was no requirement to pay any extra premium for coverage of a pillion rider on the motorcycle in case of a package policy. Reliance was placed on judgment of this court in FAO No. 1595 of 2008 titled as Davinder Singh vs Mandeep Singh and others decided on 25.3.2010. Learned counsel appearing for the insurance company neither could raise any argument in defence nor could distinguish the judgment of this court in Davinder Singh's case (supra). Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the paper-book. As far as the factum of the deceased being a pillion rider on the motorcycle and insurance policy being a package policy is concerned, the facts are not in dispute, as has been discussed in para 24 of the award. The question as to whether pillion rider on a two wheeler is covered under the package policy is concerned, has already been considered by this court in Davinder Singh's case (supra) and it was held that there is no requirement for payment of extra premium for covering a pillion rider on a two wheeler in case of a package policy and the insurance company is liable to pay the amount of compensation to the claimants. In fact the premium is being charged for the purpose in package policies since June 1986. For the detailed reasons recorded in Davinder Singh's case (supra), the present appeal is allowed and the finding of the learned Tribunal absolving the Insurance company of its liability to indemnify the insured is set aside and it is held that the insurance company is liable to pay the amount of compensation to the claimants. Considering the fact that premium for coverage of pillion riders on two wheeler is being charged by the insurance company in package policies since June 1986 but still defence was being taken that on account of non-payment of extra premium, the pillion rider was not covered, the insurance company is burdened with cost which is quantified at Rs. 10,000/-. It shall be payable to the appellant by the insurance company. The appeal is disposed of in the above terms. 6.5.2010 ( Rajesh Bindal) vs. Judge