In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh F.A.O. No. 5313 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision: November 19, 2009 United India Insurance Company Limited .. Appellant Vs. Nitin and another .. Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.N. Jindal Present: Mr. Sanjiv Pabbi, Advocate for the appellant. A.N. Jindal, J CM No.25904-05-CII of 2009 For the reasons mentioned in the applications, delay in filing as well as re-filing the appeal is condoned. Civil Misc. applications are allowed. CM No. 27243-CII of 2009 Civil Misc. application is allowed. Copy of the policy is taken on record. FAO No.5313 of 2009 and CM No.25906-CII of 2009 The respondent No.1-claimant filed a claim petition against the appellant and the respondent NO.2 seeking compensation for the injuries suffered by him in a motor vehicular accident. The said petition was contested. The respondent No.2 was proceeded against ex-parte by the Tribunal vide order dated20.5.2008. The appellant filed the written statement pleading inter-alia that no accident had taken place; the respondent No.2 had violated the terms and conditions of the policy of insurance, therefore, the appellant is not entitled to pay compensation; the driver of the motor cycle was not holding a valid driving licence at the time of the alleged accident and the petition was the result of collusion of the respondent No.1 with 2. From the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed :- 1. Whether the petitioner Nitin sustained injuries in motor F.A.O. No. 5313 of 2009 -2- vehicular accident which took place on 16.7.2007 at about 5.15 a.m. in the area village Neerupur by using motor cycle No.HR-35C-0109 owned by respondent No.1 and insured with respondent No.2?OPP 2. Whether petitioner is entitled to compensation? If yes, what amount of compensation, the petitioner is entitled to and from whom?OPP 3. Relief. Both the parties led evidence and ultimately the claim petition was accepted. The accident has not been denied. Even otherwise the claimants have duly proved the accident, as such the claim petition under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act is maintainable. It is also no denying a fact that the motor cycle was duly insured with the appellant. The validity of the driving licence has also not been challenged. The only question raised before me is that the policy covered the owner and not the claimant-respondent No.1. Copy of the policy of insurance as placed before me indicates that Mohar Singh son of Suraj Bhan was the insured. The respondent No.1 driver of the motor cycle was the son of the insured. It was comprehensive policy and the company had undertaken to bear the liability of the owner/driver to the extent of Rs.1 lac. Here the driver was none else but the son of the owner and he could be termed as driver. Even the Apex Court in case Ningama and another vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. 2009 ACJ 2020 observed that even borrower steps into the shoes of the owner. The son of the owner certainly cannot be taken on a different footings than that of the owner. It is not an arm which could be used only by the person in whose name it is issued. All the members of the family could drive the vehicle though it was in the name of one member. As such, the company was certainly liable to pay the compensation to the claimant being son of the insured. No other point has been raised. Dismissed. November 19, 2009 (A.N. Jindal) deepak Judge