FAO No.5056 of 2008(O&M) [ 1 ] IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ... FAO No.5056 of 2008(O&M) Decided on : January 11, 2010 State Health & TPT Officer, DTE of Health and Family Welfare Services, Government of Punjab ... Appellant VERSUS Janak Dulari and others ... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE A.N.JINDAL Present: Mr.Binderjit Singh, Advocate for the appellant. Mr.Neeraj Khanna, Advocate for respondent No.4. Mr.Rajbir Singh Wasu, Advocate for respondent No.5. Appeal qua respondents No.1 to 3 already stands dismissed vide order dated 18.12.2008. A.N.JINDAL, J.- Assailed in this appeal is the award dated 13.8.2008 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bathinda (herein referred as `the Tribunal'), awarding compensation to the tune of Rs.11,96,000/- to the claimants – respondents No.1 to 3 (herein referred as `the claimants') along with interest @ 8% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition on account of the death of Ashwani Kumar in a motor vehicle accident, which took place on 16.6.2007. FAO No.5056 of 2008(O&M) [ 2 ] A bare perusal of the impugned award reveals that the accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving of the Ambulance bearing Reg.No.PB-03L-9044 owned by the appellant Department and it was being driven by respondent No.4 (Jaspal Singh). This finding has been returned by the Tribunal on the basis of overwhelming evidence on record including eye-witness account of Reena (CW3) and copy of FIR (Ex.C4). As regards quantum of compensation, the Tribunal awarded compensation due to the reasons that the deceased was working as a Science teacher in a Government High School and as per his salary certificate (Ex.C2) and salary register (Ex.C3), his monthly salary was Rs.21,443/- and that the deceased having been born on 20.8.1957 was about 50 years old, therefore, the Tribunal applied the multiplier of seven in the case. The sole argument advanced by the appellant Department is that in this claim petition relating to the death of Ashwani Kumar, liability of the Insurance Company was not limited. The policy stipulates that in case of damage to the third party property, liability could be limited to 7.5 lacs and not in the case of death. Having perused the Insurance Policy (Ex.R3), it transpires that no liability is fixed in case of death of a third person (third party) in motor vehicle accident and liability was limited only in cases of damage to the property. Similar view was taken in case of National Insurance Company Limited vs. Puja Roller Flour Mills Pvt.Ltd, 1997 ACJ 698, wherein, it was observed as under:- FAO No.5056 of 2008(O&M) [ 3 ] “7. Thus, the insurance company has undertaken to reimburse the amount of the loss of the owner of the vehicle to the extent of the liability imposed by the statute. Admittedly, the accident in this case took place on 29.9.1989 and the amending Act came into force on 1.7.1989. The contract of insurance does not provide any specific limited liability. Therefore, there is no limit of contractual liability under the terms of the policy. The policy issued clearly specified that the insurance company is liable to pay such amount as is payable under the statute.” In the case in hand, the accident took place after the enforcement of the Act of 1988 and there is no stipulation regarding the liability for payment of compensation on account of death of third party, therefore, the Tribunal fell in error while limiting the liability of the Insurance Company to the extent of 7.5 lacs, whereas, the Company was liable to completely indemnify the insured on account of accidental death. As such, the findings returned by the Tribunal in this regard, deserve to be reversed. Accordingly, the appeal is accepted and the impugned award is modified to the extent that the Insurance Company – respondent No.5 is solely liable to satisfy the award and pay the entire compensation to the claimants. No order as to costs. January , 2010 ( A.N.JINDAL ) `gian' JUDGE