In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh F.A.O. No. 504 of 2008 Date of decision: July 14, 2009 National Insurance Company Limited .. Appellant Vs. Sarabjit Kaur and others .. Respondents F.A.O. No. 506 of 2008 National Insurance Company Limited .. Appellant Vs. Gurpreet Singh and others .. Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.N. Jindal Present: Mr. Inderjit Sharma, Advocate for the appellant-Insurance Company. Mr. Ashwnai Arora, Advocate for the respondents No.1 to 4. A.N. Jindal, J This judgment of mine shall dispose of FAO No.504 and 506 of 2008, having been arisen out of the common judgment. FAO No.504 of 2008 Learned counsel for the appellant has challenged the liability of the Insurance Company on the ground that deceased Jagdeep Singh did not die as a result of involvement of the motor vehicle. Since he was driving the motor vehicle, his legal heirs are not entitled to compensation. Heard. It may be mentioned that the accident took place while driving the car bearing registration No.PB11R-6085/PB42E-3726, fell into canal. Under these circumstances, it cannot be said that the deceased did not die other than that of involvement of the motor vehicle, rather the car may have fallen into canal due to some technical defects therein, therefore, it would be deemed that the petitioner died as a result of involvement of the motor F.A.O. No. 504 of 2008 & F.A.O. No. 506 of 2008 -2- vehicle so as to invoke the provisions of Section 163-A of the Act. Regarding other objection, the petitioner being the driver of the motor vehicle is certainly entitled to compensation from the Insurance Company under Section 163-A of the Act as he was not the owner. FAO No. 506 of 2008 As regards, FAO No. 506 of 2008, filed by the insurer, an amount of Rs.10,000/- was awarded as compensation on account of the injuries suffered by the claimant. The claimant-injured had spent Rs.4000/- as operation fee and Rs.6000/- on account of treatment, therefore, the compensation to the tune of Rs.10,000/-, as awarded to him, appears to be appropriate. For the foregoing reasons, no grounds to interfere are made out. Resultantly, both the appeals stand dismissed. July 14, 2009 (A.N. Jindal) deepak Judge