F.A.O NO. 2137 OF 2010 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH F.A.O NO. 2137 OF 2010 DECIDED ON : 27.04.2010 Reliance General Insurance Co. ...Appellant versus Smt. Aarti Devi and others ...Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. C. PURI Present : Mr. Subhash Goyal, Advocate, for the appellant. K. C. PURI, J. (ORAL) This is an appeal directed by Reliance General Insurance Co. Limited against the award dated 24.12.2009 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Yamuna Nagar, Jagadhri, vide which the Insurance Company has been directed to pay an amount of Rs.One lac to the claimants under the personal accident. The legal heirs of Sanjay Kumar preferred a claim petition under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicle Act claiming compensation on account of death of Sanjay Kumar in a motor vehicular accident, arising out of the use of motorcycle bearing registration No.HR-05-T-7441 (hereinafter referred to as “Motorcycle”). F.A.O NO. 2137 OF 2010 -2- As per allegations made in the claim petition, on the intervening night of 19/20.05.2007, Sanjay Kumar and Rakesh Kumar alias Ramesh were going on the motorcycle bearing No.HR-5T-7441 from village Kheri Lakha Singh to village Nagal. Sanjay Kumar was driving the motorcycle whereas Rakesh Kumar alias Ramesh was the pillion rider. When they reached in the area of village Basantpura on Kheri Lakha Singh-Radaur Road, due to reflection of the light, the motorcycle in question struck against Eucalyptus tree standing nearby the road and on that account, Sanjay Kumar and Rakesh Kumar received multiple grevious injuries and later on succumbed to the injuries. The present petition relates to the death of Sanjay Kumar. Respondent No.1 filed written statement taking preliminary objections that the petition is not maintainable and that respondent No.1 is not liable to pay any amount of compensation. On merits, all the material averments made in the petition were denied for want of knowledge. However, it was admitted that Sanjay Kumar died in a motor vehicular accident, arising out of the use of motorcycle. The motorcycle in question was duly insured with respondent No.2 and therefore, respondent No.2 being insurer is liable to indemnify respondent No.1 in the present proceedings. Respondent No.2 filed separate written statement taking preliminary objections that the petition is not maintainable; no accident has taken place with the motorcycle in F.A.O NO. 2137 OF 2010 -3- question. No replication was filed. From the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed : 1. Whether Sanjay son of Ram Chander and Rakesh Kumar son of Gangu Ram died in a vehicular accident occurred on the intervening night of 19/20.05.2007 involving the use of the motorcycle bearing registration No.HR-05-T-7441 ? OPP 2. If Issue No.1 is proved in affirmative, to what extent the claimants are entitled to claim compensation and from whom ? OPP 3. Whether petition is not maintainable ? OPR 4. Whether the petitioner is not covered under the terms and conditions of insurance policy issued by respondent No. 2? If so, its effect ? OPR-2 5. Whether deceased Sanjay was not holding a valid and effective driving licence at the time of alleged accident ? OPR-2 6. Relief. The learned Tribunal, after appraisal of the evidence, returned the findings on Issues No.1 in favour of the claimants. While deciding Issue No.2, the claimants were held entitle to claim Rs.4,70,000/- along with interest. However, relying upon the authorities “Ningamma and anr. Vs. United India F.A.O NO. 2137 OF 2010 -4- Insurance Co. Ltd.” 2009 (3) RCR (Civil) 435 (S.C). The Insurance Company was held liable to pay Rs.One lac in respect of personal accident. Issue No.4 was not pressed. Feeling dissatisfied with the award dated 24.12.2009,. the Insurance Company has preferred the present appeal. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the Insurance Company is not liable to pay the amount of Rs.One lac also as the personal accident relates to the owner of motorcycle and not to Sanjay Kumar. Gian Chand has not received the injuries. So, the Insurance Company is not liable to pay any amount. The Insurance Company has disputed the liability by relying upon authority Ningamma's case (supra). The learned Tribunal has appreciated the said ruling in the right prospective and on that account holding that Sanjay Kumar would be deemed to be the owner being borrower from the owner, is correct. In para no.18 of the judgment, it has been held that if a person borrows the motor vehicle from the owner, in that case, he would step in to the shoes of the owner of the motor vehicle. The ratio of the said judgment is that the liability to pay the amount by the Insurance Company arises in two ways : (i) statutory liability under the Act; (ii) contractual liability arising out of the terms of the Policy. F.A.O NO. 2137 OF 2010 -5- Learned counsel for the appellant is fair enough to concede that additional premium of Rs.50/- has been paid by the owner to cover the liability in respect of personal accident of owner to the extent of Rs.One lac. So, the Tribunal has rightly held that under the contractual liability, the Insurance Company is bound to indemnify the legal heirs of Sanjay Kumar to the extent of Rs.One lac. In view of the above discussions, the appeal preferred by the Insurance Company is without any merit and the same stands dismissed. APRIL 27, 2010 (K. C. PURI) shalini JUDGE