F.A.O NO. 3449 OF 2008 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH F.A.O NO. 3449 OF 2008 DECIDED ON : 30.03.2010 Om Parkash and another ...Appellants versus Shyamati and others ...Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. C. PURI Present : Mr. Vineet Chaudhary, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. R. C. Kapoor, Advocate, for respondent No.5-Insurance Company. K. C. PURI, J. (ORAL) This is an appeal directed by owner and driver of motorcycle bearing No.HR-26-8-3801 for setting aside that part of judgment vide which they have been held liable to reimburse the Insurance Company. Briefly stated, Shamwati-widow and others filed claim petition claiming compensation on account of death of Meer Singh in a motor vehicular accident. The case of the claimants as set forth is that on 16.10.2005, Meer Singh along with Om Prakash Arora-now appellant was proceeding from Bhiwadi on motorcycle bearing registration No.HR-268-3801. Om Prakash was driving the motorcycle and Meer Singh was pillion rider. At about 6:30 P.M F.A.O NO. 3449 OF 2008 -2- when they reached near village Kharkhara, National Highway No.8 near Karma Filling Station, Om Prakash hit the motorcycle in a car. Due to this accident, Meer Singh fell down from the motorcycle and sustained grevious head injuries and died at the spot. Om Prakash was got admitted in hospital for treatment. The owner and driver-now appellants filed written statement taking preliminary objections that the claim petition is not maintainable; that claimants have no locus-standi to file the present petition. It is pleaded that the accident took place due to self negligence of the deceased himself. It is denied that the accident has taken place due to rash and negligent driving of motorcycle by Om Prakash. Respondent No.3-Insurance Company filed separate written statement taking preliminary objections that the claimants have no locus-standi to file the present appeal in as much as Om Prakash was not holding a valid driving license at the time of accident. It is further pleaded that terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy have been violated. The risk of pillion rider was not covered by the Insurance Policy. From the pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal framed the following issues : 1. Whether the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of vehicle no. HR-268-3801 by respondent No.1 ? OPP 2. Whether the petitioners are entitled to compensation, on account of death of Meer Singh in the accident and if so, to what amount and from whom ? OPP F.A.O NO. 3449 OF 2008 -3- 3. Whether respondent No.1 was not holding a valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident ? OPR 4. Relief. The learned trial Court after appraisal of the evidence, returned the findings on Issue No.1 in favour of claimants. While deciding Issue No.2, the claimants were held entitle to claim Rs.3,30,000/- but it was held that the Insurance Company is not liable to pay the compensation in as much as the risk of pillion rider was not covered by the Policy in question. Issue No.3 was decided against the Insurance Company. In view of the findings on all the issues, the claim petition was accepted and the present appellants were ordered to pay the compensation to the tune of Rs.3,30,000/-. Feeling dissatisfied with the above said award, the driver and owner have preferred the present appeal. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the Insurance Company has been absolved only on the ground that no additional premium was made in respect of liability of pillion rider. It is contended that from the perusal of Policy Exhibit R-1, it is clear that it was a package policy which includes the risk of pillion rider. To support this contention, learned counsel for the appellants has relied upon authority “Bajaj Allainz General Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. B. M. Niranjan and another” 2008 ACJ 554. F.A.O NO. 3449 OF 2008 -4- Learned counsel for the Insurance Company has supported that no additional premium has been paid and as such, Insurance Company is not liable to pay the amount. I have considered the submissions made by both the sides and have gone through the records of the case. From the perusal of the Insurance Policy Exhibit R-1,it is revealed that it is package policy. The case of the appellants is duly covered by the Bajaj Allianz 's case (supra) in which it is clearly laid down that the Insurance Company is liable to pay the amount in case of a package policy. The factual position that it is a package policy, has not been disputed. So, in these circumstances, the award stands modified and it is held that the appellants along with the Insurance Company are jointly and severally liable to pay the award amount. The primary liability to pay the amount is of the Insurance Company. At this stage, learned counsel for the appellants has pointed that statutory amount of Rs.25,000/- has been deposited by the claimants. The Insurance Company shall reimburse the said amount to the appellants. Disposed of. MARCH 30, 2010 (K. C. PURI) shalini JUDGE