FAO No. 3925 of 2008 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No. 3925 of 2008 (O&M) Date of decision: 18.01.2010 Oriental Insurance Company Limited ....Appellant Versus Santosh and others ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD K. SHARMA Present: - Ms. Supriya Singh, Advocate, for Mr. Veena Ashwani Talwar, Advocate, for the appellant. Mr. Vivek Suri, Advocate, for respondent No.1. Mr. Gobind Dhanda, Advocate, for respondents No.2 and 3. VINOD K. SHARMA, J (ORAL) This appeal by the Insurance Company is directed against the award dated 3.6.2008 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Panchkula, Haryana, allowing the claim petition filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The claimant sought compensation for death of Sunita in a roadside accident, which occurred on 22.10.2006 around 6.00 p.m. While the deceased was going with her mother and grandparents, the offending tractor, which was driven in rash and negligent manner, came from behind and hit the deceased and her mother. In the accident both sustained multiple grievous injuries. Sunita succumbed to her injuries. The case set up in claim petition was, that the death was caused due to rash and negligent driving of respondent No.1. FAO No. 3925 of 2008 (O&M) -2- The claim petition was contested, wherein averments made in the claim petition qua rash and negligent driving were denied. The appellant-Insurance Company denied its liability, on the plea that the offending vehicle was being driven by the person who was not holding valid driving licence, and further that the tractor was being plied against the terms of the insurance policy, therefore, the Insurance Company was not liable to pay any compensation. On appreciation of evidence, the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal recorded, that Ms. Sunita died on account of injuries suffered by her in a vehicular accident, which took place due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by Dal Bahadur. The learned Tribunal assessed the compensation payable as Rs.2,90,000/- (Rupees two lac ninety thousand only) with interest @ 6% per annum. Costs were also awarded. Learned Tribunal had framed issue No.3 on the pleading of the appellant, which reads as under: - “3. Whether driver-Dal Bahadur was not holding a valid and effective driving licence on the date of accident, if so to what effect? OPR-3.” This issue was decided against the appellant, as the Insurance Company failed to lead any evidence on this issue nor it was pressed. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant- Insurance Company contends, that the learned Tribunal committed an error in law in not granting the right of recovery to the Insurance Company, in spite of the fact that it was proved on record, that the tractor was being plied against the terms of the policy. FAO No. 3925 of 2008 (O&M) -3- The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is, that the policy was “Motor Trade (Road Transitriest) Policy”, for running the tractor on a specified route. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is, that even if the case set up by the claimant is taken as correct, it would prove that the tractor was being plied against the terms of the policy, as under the policy, the tractor was only to go from Pinjore to Bihar Sharief, whereas the accident occurred when the tractor was coming back from Surajpur to Pinjore. This contention of the learned counsel for the appellant deserves to be rejected for more than one reasons. Firstly, that no such plea was raised before the learned Tribunal, nor any issue was framed with regard to the plying of tractor against the policy, as the only plea raised was, that the tractor driver did not have a valid driving licence and the issue was not pressed. Secondly, for the reason, that, the vehicle which goes from one route comes back on the same route, and the accident admittedly occurred on the sanctioned route where the tractor was to ply, therefore, it cannot be said that there was any violation of terms of policy. No merit. Dismissed. (Vinod K. Sharma) Judge January 18, 2010 R.S.