F. A. O. No. 1631 of 2009 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Case No. : F. A. O. No. 1631 of 2009 (O&M) Date of Decision : April 15, 2009 National Insurance Co. Ltd. .... Appellant Vs. Bharat Singh and others .... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL * * * Present : Mr. Navin Kapur, Advocate for the appellant. * * * L. N. MITTAL, J. (Oral) : C. M. No. 8367-C-II of 2009 : For the reasons mentioned in the application, delay of 38 days in filing the appeal is condoned. C. M. No. 8366-C-II of 2009 : Application is allowed and the appellant is permitted to make good the deficiency in court fee. Main Appeal : This is appeal by National Insurance Company Ltd. impugning Award dated 17.11.2008 of learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Narnaul thereby allowing claim petition filed by respondents no.1 and 2 herein under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and granting them compensation of Rs.2,18,000/- payable jointly and severally by the F. A. O. No. 1631 of 2009 (O&M) 2 appellant-insurer and owner insured-respondent no.3 herein along with interest for the death of Ranjit Singh son of the claimants, caused in a motor vehicle accident. The deceased himself was driving the scooter, which stood insured with the appellant. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the appellant is not liable to satisfy the Award because the deceased, who was driving the scooter at the time of accident, was not holding valid driving license. However, the appellant-insurer has not led any evidence on record to substantiate this contention. Onus to prove issue no. 4 relating to this contention was on the appellant-insurer. On the other hand, claimant- respondent no.1 Bharat Singh stated in the witness-box that the deceased was holding valid driving license, which was lost in the accident itself. The insurance company i.e. the appellant did not lead any evidence to the contrary nor it summoned the driving license from the owner-respondent no.3. Consequently, it cannot be said that the deceased was not holding valid driving license. In other words, the appellant is not absolved of its liability to satisfy the Award on this ground. Learned counsel for the appellant next contended that the deceased had borrowed the scooter from the owner insured and was, therefore, not a third party and for this reason as well, the appellant-insurer is not liable to pay the compensation. This argument is also devoid of substance because learned counsel for the appellant concedes that additional premium of Rs.50/- had been paid to cover the owner insured as well. Consequently, if the deceased is deemed to have stepped into the shoes of owner, as contended by learned counsel for the appellant, or is treated as third party, in either event, the appellant-insurer cannot be absolved of its liability to pay the compensation amount. Learned counsel for the appellant in support of his contention has placed reliance on a judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Meena F. A. O. No. 1631 of 2009 (O&M) 3 Variyal and others reported as 2007 ACJ 1284. However, in that case, the owner was not covered by the insurance policy, whereas in the instant case, admittedly the owner was covered by the insurance policy on account of payment of additional premium for the same. Consequently, the ratio of law laid down in the case of Meena Variyal (supra) is not applicable to the facts of the case in hand. Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently contended that liability of the appellant towards the owner was limited to the extent of Rs.1,00,000/- only. However, this contention cannot be accepted because no such plea was even raised in the written statement or in the grounds of appeal or before the Tribunal. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant-insurer in the written statement denied its liability completely. However, complete denial of liability is different from plea of limited liability. In the instant case, the appellant-insurer raised plea of complete denial of its liability, but did not raise the alternative plea of limited liability. Consequently, the aforesaid contention cannot be accepted at appellate stage because no such plea was even raised before the Claims Tribunal. In view of the aforesaid, finding no merit in the instant appeal, the same is hereby dismissed. April 15, 2009 ( L. N. MITTAL ) monika JUDGE