FAO No.5408 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.5408 of 2009 Date of decision:6.7.2011 Gulzar Singh and another ...Appellants Versus Smt. Birmala and another ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN Present: Mr.Joginder Pal Sharma, Advocate, for the appellant. Ms.Madhu Sharma, Advocate, for the Insurance Company. -.- JITENDRA CHUAHAN, J. The present appeal is directed against the award dated 15.1.2009, passed by the learned Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, Panchkula, (for short `the Tribunal) whereby the claim petition filed by Smt. Birmala (herein ` respondent No. 1) was accepted. Brief facts of the case are that on 20.2.2007 at about 4.30 p.m, the claimant alongwith other ladies were standing near HMT Petrol Pump on the National Highway No.22 for going to their village Rampur Seuria. In the meantime, a tractor-trolley bearing registration No.HR-03-H-2721 being driven by respondent No.1 came from Pinjore side. The appellant No.1 allowed the passengers including the deceased to travel on the trolley after offering lift by the passengers. Thereafter, respondent No.1 started driving in a rash and negligent manner and resultantly, the said vehicle met with an accident and due to which, the passengers including the claimant received injuries. Hence the claim petition was filed. FAO No.5408 of 2009 2 After framing of issues and allowing the parties to lead evidence, the learned Tribunal vide award dated 15.1.2009 accepted the claim petition of the claimant/respondent and held that the awarded amount shall be paid by driver and owner of the offending vehicle jointly and severally to the claimant. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the award of the learned Tribunal is liable to be set aside as the learned Tribunal has erred in not framing the issue regarding the liability of the Insurance Company who was one of the respondents. He has also submitted that the compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal is on higher side. On the other hand, learned counsel for the Insurance Company has submitted that it is proved on record that the claimants were gratuitous passengers and, therefore, the Insurance Company cannot be held liable to pay any compensation. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. From the perusal of award, it is established that the said accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of appellant No.1, which is evident from the statements of injured eye-witnesses. It is also proved on record that the injured claimants were gratuitous passengers, therefore, the Insurance Company cannot be held liable to pay any compensation. It has also been observed by the learned Tribunal that the claimant suffered permanent disability to the extent of 3%, which is evident from disability certificate, Exhibit P24. The claimant has also placed on record medical bills/ taxi bills, Ex.P5 to Ex.P23. As the factum of accident is proved, the disability certificate and the bills furnished by the claimant are not disputed and the claimant FAO No.5408 of 2009 3 being a gratuitous person, the liability has been rightly fastened upon the appellants. The argument advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant is that the compensation is on higher side is not tenable in view of the admitted facts that the claimant/respondent suffered injuries and remained admitted in hospital, which is proved from the documentary evidence. In view of above, the present appeal is dismissed being devoid of any merit. 6.7.2011 (JITENDRA CHAUHAN) mk JUDGE Note: Whether to be referred to the Reporter? Yes / No