Civil Revision No. 1459 of 2007 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 1459 of 2007 (O&M) Date of Decision: 18.01.2010 United India Insurance Company Limited ...Petitioner Vs. Charanjeet Singh & Ors. ...Respondents CORAM Hon'ble Mr.Justice Vinod K.Sharma Present: Mr.Neeraj Khanna, Advocate, for the petitioner. None for the respondents. Vinod K.Sharma, J. (Oral) This revision petition by the United India Insurance Company Limited, is directed against the award dated 11.12.2006, passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jind (for short the Tribunal) vide which, while granting compensation of Rs.15,000/- (Rupees fifteen thousand only) for the damage caused to the vehicle Tata-407 bearing registration No.HR-56-0929. The learned Tribunal directed recovery of Rs.6000/- (Rupees six thousand only) from the National Insurance Company and balance of Rs.9000/- (Rupees nine thousand only) from the Civil Revision No. 1459 of 2007 2 petitioner. Truck No.HR-38-D-9683 met with an accident with Tata-407 bearing registration No.HR-56-0929. While truck was insured with National Insurance Company Tata-407 bearing registration No.HR-56-0929 was insured with the petitioner. On account of the accident three claim petitions were filed. For the present we are concerned only with the claim petition filed by owner of Tata-407 bearing registration No.HR-56-0929, claiming compensation for damages caused to the vehicle. The amount claimed by the owner was Rs.54000/- (Rupees fifty four thousand only). However, for want of report of Surveyor, learned Tribunal assessed the damages to be only Rs.15000/- (Rupees fifteen thousand only) but as under the policy liability of the National Insurance Company was only Rs.6000/- (Rupees six thousand only), the learned Tribunal ordered that Rs.6000/- (Rupees six thousand only) be paid by the National Insurance Company as Truck No.HR-38-D-9683 was held to be responsible for the accident, due to the rash and negligent driving of the truck by its driver. Liability to pay the balance of Rs.9000/- (Rupees nine thousand only), was fastened on the petitioner. The learned Tribunal held that the policy taken by the owner of Tata-407 bearing registration No.HR-56-0929 was a comprehensive policy, therefore, the petitioner was liable to make good the money spent on repair of the vehicle by the insurer i.e. the owner. Mr. Neeraj Khanna, learned counsel for the petitioner, vehemently contends, that the impugned order cannot be sustained as once it was held that the accident had occurred due to rash and negligent driving Civil Revision No. 1459 of 2007 3 of the, driver of Truck No.HR-38-D-9683, insured with the National Insurance Company, liability could only be fastened on the said Insurance Company, owner or driver of the truck and not on the petitioner. On consideration, I find no force in this contention, the liability of the National Insurance Company, qua the damage, to the vehicle was limited to Rs.6000/- (Rupees six thousand only), therefore, the said Insurance company could not be fastened with the liability beyond the said limit. The petitioner having issued comprehensive policy, therefore, cannot deny its liability, to pay to the owner balance amount spent on repair. The policy of insurance taken out was comprehensive policy, and the petitioner under the policy was to indemnify the owner of vehicle, for all repairs. No ground is made out to interfere with the impugned order. No merit. Dismissed. (Vinod K.Sharma) 18.01.2010 Judge rp