FAO No. 3280 of 2008 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No. 3280 of 2008 (O&M) Date of decision : 19.2.2010 ... Jarnail Singh ................Appellant vs. Kirpal Singh and another .................Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice K.C. Puri Present: Sh. Sham Lal Bhalla, Advocate for the appellant Sh. Gopal Mittal, Advocate for respondent No.2-Insurance Company. ... K.C. Puri, J. (Oral) This is an appeal directed by the claimant against award dated 5.12.2007 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Fatehgarh Sahib, vide which the claim petition under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988, was dismissed relying upon the authority 2007 ACJ 698. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that on 21.7.2005 at 11.45 A.M. ASI Ganga Parkash lodged DDR No.42 to the effect that truck No. HR-37-6681 while standing with a safada tree struck was found damaged from the front side. Nahar Singh present on the spot FAO No. 3280 of 2008 -2- told ASI that unknown truck was going ahead of truck No. HR-37- 6681 and to save the unknown truck, the driver of truck No. HR-37- 6681 had applied brakes and the truck had gone towards left side. While saving unknown truck, truck No. HR 37-6681 driven by Jarnail Singh had struck against a tree. Jarnail Singh driver and cleaner Parveen Singh were shifted to hospital in PCR vehicle. The petition was filed by Jarnail singh claiming compensation on account of injuries suffered by him. The petition was contested by respondents. From the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed:- 1. whether Jarnail Singh received injuries due to an accident which had taken place on 21.7.2005 at about 3.00 a.m. at J.P. Park Gate No.4 Ring Road New Delhi out of the use of Truck No. HR-37-6681? OPP 2. Whether Jarnail Singh was having a valid driving licence at the time of accident? If so, its effect? OPP 3. Whether the claimant is entitled to receive compensation if so, to what extent and from whom? OPA 4. Relief. The claimant examined Dr. Gurpreet Singh PW-1, Dr. Rakesh Gautam PW-2, Dr. Jatinder Kumar PW-4, besides appearing as his own witness. Respondents produced copy of policy and driving licence. Learned Tribunal after appraisal of the evidence, returned the finding on issue No.1 in favour of the claimant. Issue No. 2 was also decided in favour of claimant. However, while deciding issue No.3, FAO No. 3280 of 2008 -3- the Tribunal relied upon authority 2007 ACJ 698 and decide the case in favour of Insurance Company and in view of finding on issue No.3, the claim petition was dismissed. Feeling dissatisfied with the above said award, the present appeal has been filed for grant of compensation. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions made by both the sides and have also gone through the record of the case. The claimant has been non-suited on the ground that since there is no personal accident coverage of the owner/driver, so the Insurance Company is not liable. However, that finding is contrary to the policy Exhibit R-1. From the perusal of the policy, it is crystal clear that premium regarding compulsory PA to owner-cum-driver has been paid by the owner and liability of the Insurance Company in that respect as per policy Exhibit R-1 is upto Rs. 2 lacs. In the authority reported as United India Insurance Company Limited vs. Kusum Sood and others 2008 (1) RCR (Civil) 751, the Division Bench of this Court has held that if the policy covers the risk of driver then Insurance Company is liable to the extent of its liability mentioned in the policy. The Tribunal has not assessed the amount of compensation. So, in view of the above circumstances, the appeal stands accepted. The case is remanded back to the Tribunal for deciding the amount of compensation. However, in view of terms of policy , the liability of the Insurance Company shall be to the extent of Rs. 2 lacs. Parties are directed to appear before the Tribunal on FAO No. 3280 of 2008 -4- 11.3.2010. Needless to say that since it is a remand case, the Tribunal shall decide the same expeditiously, preferably within four months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. The appeal stands disposed of. Record of the case be sent back to the Tribunal immediately. ( K.C. Puri ) 19.2.2010 Judge chugh