IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH F.A.O.No.5545 of 2009(O&M) Date of Decision 23.11.2009 United India Insurance Company Limited ...... Appellant VERSUS Smt.Sunita Devi Mintu and others ...... Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.N.JINDAL Present: Mr.Nirmal Mittal, Advocate, for the appellant. ***** A.N.JINDAL, J(ORAL): C.M.No.27508-CII of 2009 For the reasons, mentioned in the application, delay in filing the appeal is condoned. F.A.O.No.5545 of 2009 This appeal preferred by the appellant-Insurance Company, is directed against the award dated 23.07.2009, passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Rewari, (herein referred as 'the Tribunal') awarding compensation to the tune of Rs.1,12,200/- alongwith interest @ 9% per annum in favour of respondents No.1 to 3-claimants (herein referred as 'the claimants') and against the appellant and respondent No.4 jointly and severally on account of the death of Sanjay @ Khayali Ram in a motor vehicular accident. Learned counsel for the appellant has placed reliance on the judgment delivered in case Ningamma and another versus United India Insurance Company Limited passed in Civil Appeal No.3538 of 2009 (arising out of SLP (C) No.24236 of 2008) in order to contend that the F.A.O.No.5545 of 2009(O&M) -2- motorcycle was being driven by the borrower when it met with accident and borrower suffered the injuries. He has urged that the borrower could be equated with the owner, as such, the borrower not be third party, no compensation could be awarded to the appellants. Having scrutinized Ningamma's case (supra), it is noticed that in that case since no premium was paid for the driver-owner, therefore, Company was not held liable but in the present case, the policy Ex.R1 as referred to by the Tribunal reveals that the policy Ex.R1 covered the owner- cum-driver as insured had paid extra premium for insuring the owner-cum- driver. Learned counsel for the appellant has further submitted that the said policy was valid upto Rs.1,00,000/- wherein in this case compensation to the tune of Rs.1,12,000/- was awarded, therefore, the judgment is not valid to that extent. Having scrutinized the impugned judgment, it transpires that the judgment was passed in favour of the claimants and against the driver and owner jointly and severally. As such, the appeal is disposed of with the modification that if the company has paid the amount more than Rs.1,00,000/- then it is relegated to the remedy as provided under law to recover the same from the insured. (A.N.Jindal) Judge 23.11.2009 mamta-II