F.A.O. No. 4799 of 2009 1 .. IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH F.A.O. No. 4799 of 2009 Date of Decision: December 7th, 2011 The New India Assurance Company Limited .... Appellant Versus Smt. Saranjit Kaur and others. .... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJENDER SINGH MALIK 1.Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2.Whether to be referred to the Reporters or not? 3.Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present Mr. L.M.Suri , Senior Advocate, with Mr. Neeraj Khanna, Advocate, for the appellant. Mr. Ashit Malik, Advocate, for respondents No. 1 to 4. Mr. Sanjay Verma, Advocate, for respondents No. 7 and 8. VIJENDER SINGH MALIK, J. This is an appeal brought by the insurer against the award dated 31.7.2009 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kurukshetra (for short, "the Tribunal") vide which the claim petition brought by Smt. Saranjit Kaur and others under the provisions of section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, “the Act”) has been allowed and a sum of ` 3,94,000/- has been awarded as compensation to the claimants on the death of Basant Singh. The facts necessary to decide this appeal are as under: F.A.O. No. 4799 of 2009 2 .. On 14.2.2008, Basant Singh (deceased) hired a TATA- 407 bearing registration No.HR-08GA-0257 and loaded his household effects in the same from Delhi for his village Patti. He was travelling in the said vehicle along with his goods as owner of the goods. Respondent No.1, Piara Singh, was driving the said vehicle at a very fast speed and in a rash and negligent manner. The vehicle reached the area of Police Station Shahbad on 15.2.2008 at about 2.30 a.m. At that time, the said vehicle had hit an unknown truck and had then hit a truck bearing registration No.HR-51-GA-0775, which was driven by respondent No.5. As a result of the accident, driver of TATA-407 suffered multiple injuries. Basant Singh died on account of the injuries suffered by him in the accident at the spot. The accident is claimed to have occurred due to sole rash and negligent driving of TATA-407 driven by Piara Singh, respondent no.1. The claim petition has been resisted by the respondents. Respondents No.1 and 2, the driver and owner respectively of the TATA-407 in question have denied the accident to have occurred on account of rash and negligent driving of the vehicle by respondent No.1. It is claimed that if the Tribunal reaches the conclusion that the accident was an outcome of rash and negligent driving of TATA-407, then respondent No. 3, the insurer is liable to pay compensation. Respondent No. 3, the New India Assurance Company Limited has claimed in its written statement that there was no F.A.O. No. 4799 of 2009 3 .. insurable interest of TATA-407 in question with the answering respondent. According to it, cover note No. 925949 was stolen from the branch office of the answering respondent and the same was forged for insurance of the above said four wheeler. The TATA-407 is also claimed to have been driven by a person not holding a valid and effective driving licence at the time of alleged accident. It is also averred that the driver of TATA-407 in question was not in the employment of the insured at the time of the accident. The claim petition is said to have been filed just to grab the compensation. It is alleged that no premium was received in this case in the office of the answering respondent. The other set of respondents, i.e. respondents No. 4 to 6 have denied their responsibility in any manner to satisfy the award. They have claimed themselves to be unnecessary parties to the claim petition. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed the Tribunal. 1. Whether the accident in question resulting into death of Basant Singh took place on 14.2.2008 due to rash and negligent driving of respondent no.1, while driving four wheeler TATA-407 bearing registration No. HR-08GA- 0257, as alleged? OPP 2. If issue No.1 is proved in affirmative, whether petitioners are entitled to receive any compensation, if so, how much and from whom? OPP F.A.O. No. 4799 of 2009 4 .. 3. Whether respondent No.1 was not holding a valid and effective driving licence on the date of accident, if so, its effect? OPR 4. Whether present petition is not maintainable in the present form? OPR 5. Relief. Parties led their respective evidence. Hearing learned counsel representing them, learned Tribunal awarded compensation in a sum of ` 3,94,000/- to the claimants vide the impugned award. Aggrieved by the aforesaid award, the insurer of TATA- 407 in question has brought this appeal. I have heard Mr. L.M.Suri , learned Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Neeraj Khanna, learned counsel for the appellant, Mr. Ashit Malik, learned counsel for respondents No. 1 to 4 and Mr. Sanjay Verma, learned counsel for respondents No. 7 and 8. I have gone through the record carefully. Learned senior counsel for the appellant has submitted that the appellant is assailing the award only on two grounds. According to him, there is no valid insurance cover available to the offending vehicle because the cover note produced on the file for the said vehicle had been stolen from the office of the company and no insurance premium was received by the appellant in this case. According to him, there is no valid contract of insurance and, therefore, the appellant is not liable to indemnify the insured. He has further submitted that the deceased was travelling in a goods vehicle. According to him, it F.A.O. No. 4799 of 2009 5 .. is one case where a person travels in goods vehicle with his goods as owner thereof and it is altogether different if he is travelling in a goods vehicle and he himself is carrying some of his goods. According to him, in the case in hand, the TATA-407 was not hired by the deceased for carrying his goods and that he was only travelling in the goods vehicle with some of his household utensils and he cannot be said to be covered by the insurance policy. Learned counsel for respondents No.1 to 4, on the other hand, has submitted that the evidence on record clearly proves that the cover note had been issued by an employee of the appellant under his signatures and the cover note is from the book of the insurance company and also that the cover note has never been cancelled by the appellant. According to him, for these facts, learned Tribunal has rightly taken the cover note to be proving the vehicle in question to be duly insured at the time of accident. He has further submitted that Saranjit Kaur, claimant, has appeared as PW-1 in this case and she has categorically stated that they had loaded their household goods in the vehicle in question and were travelling with their goods in the same. According to him, Basant Singh (deceased) was, therefore, covered by the insurance policy and learned Tribunal has not fallen in error in any way in awarding compensation to the claimants and holding the insurance company, the appellant, to be jointly and severally liable to pay compensation alongwith the driver and owner of the TATA-407 in question. F.A.O. No. 4799 of 2009 6 .. Learned senior counsel in reply to the aforesaid submissions has submitted that learned counsel for respondents No. 1 to 4 has failed to highlight the statement of Jeevan Kumar, Branch Manager (RW-1), who has stated that they had searched their records after receiving intimation of filing of this claim petition and have found that the cover note had been issued on stolen book of the company and that the cover note was forged one. According to him, a complaint was made to the police in this regard and case has been registered against Gurdeep Singh, who is facing trial in the said case. The statement of Jeevan Kumar (RW-1) may well prove that Gurdeep Singh had stolen the book from the insurance company on which the cover note in question had been issued by him. The insurance company may have proceeded against him on criminal side and the challan may also have been pending against Gurdeep Singh. However, these facts do not negate the fact that the vehicle was insured at the time of accident so far as the owner of the vehicle is concerned. The owner took the cover note from Gurdeep Singh, who is admittedly an employee of the appellant. Jeevan Kumar (RW-1) in his cross-examination has admitted that Gurdeep Singh was working for their office. He has also admitted that the alleged cover note (Ex. R1) bears the signatures of said Gurdeep Singh. He has further admitted that the cover note is from the book of cover notes of their branch and that the same had never been cancelled. These facts are sufficient for the insured to take his F.A.O. No. 4799 of 2009 7 .. vehicle as insured and whatever proceedings may be brought by the insurance company against its employee, named, Gurdeep Singh, the insured cannot be said to have not been covered in this case. Therefore, learned Tribunal has not committed any error in taking the vehicle as insured at the time of accident. Coming to the other aspect, it is there in the evidence that Basant Singh was carrying his household effects in the TATA-407 in question. It is not a case where Basant Singh was travelling in a goods carriage having some household goods in the bag he may be carrying. The entire vehicle was loaded with the household effects of Basant Singh, who was shifting his residence from Delhi to his village Patti. Therefore, it cannot be said that the deceased was travelling in goods carriage while carrying some of his household goods, but it is case where the deceased was carrying his household goods in the vehicle in question and was travelling with those goods and, consequently, he stands covered by the insurance policy. For the aforesaid reasons, I fail to agree with learned senior counsel for the appellants on any of the two points raised by him. Consequently, I find no merit in the appeal and dismiss the same with costs. (VIJENDER SINGH MALIK) JUDGE December 7th, 2011 som