F.A.O.No. 642 of 2008(O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH F.A.O.No. 642 of 2008(O&M) Date of Decision 09.09.2009 New India Assurance Company Ltd. ......Appellant VERSUS Sukhjinder Kaur and others ......Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.N.JINDAL Present: Mr.V.Ramsaroop, Advocate, for the appellant. Mr.Sandeep Arora, Advocate,for respondent No.1. ***** A.N.JINDAL, J(ORAL): Appellant-respondent No.2 Insurance Company (herein referred as 'the appellant') has challenged the validity of the award dated 19.10.2007, passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Gurdaspur awarding compensation to the tune of Rs.2,00,000/- alongwith interest @ 6% per annum in favour of the claimant-respondent No.1 (herein referred as 'the claimant') on account of the death of Yadavinder Singh in a motor vehicle accident and against the appellant-insurance company and respondent No.2 jointly and severally. Briefly resume of the facts is that on 12.03.2006 at about 7:20 p.m., Yadavinder Singh (deceased), while driving the tractor Massey alongwith trolley bearing Registration No.PB-18-E-1384 was coming back after paying homage at Dera Baba Wadbhag Singh, Una in Himachal Pradesh. When he reached near the turning of village Langian in the area of Police Station Amb District Una, the driver lost his control over the offending vehicle and the same alongwith its trolley turned down towards the fields. Resultantly, the deceased alongwith other three persons, sitting on the offending vehicle received grievous injuries. They were brought to Primary Health Centre, Amb, District Una but Yadvinder Singh (driver), son of the claimant, died in the way. FIR No.40 dated 12.03.2006 was lodged at Police Station Amb, District Una by Kashmir Singh son of Bhajan Singh, resident of village Seeraha, Tehsil Batala. F.A.O.No. 642 of 2008(O&M) 2 As an aftermath of the accident, the claimant, being the mother of deceased Yadavinder Singh a young man of 20 years of age, moved an application under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act for seeking compensation. Upon notice, the respondents put in appearance and contested the cause. Respondent No.2-owner of the offending vehicle in his written statement besides some preliminary objections, denied the accident whereas appellant-insurance company averred that the deceased was not holding a valid driving licence at the time of accident. It violated the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. On merits, the accident as well as the income of the deceased were denied. Ultimately, prayer for dismissal of the claim petition was made. From pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed:- 1. Whether Yadavinder Singh alias Sabha died in a motor vehicle accident on 12.03.2006 ? OPP 2. Whether the claimant is legal heirs of deceased Yadavinder Singh ? OPP 3. Whether the claimant is entitled to compensation ? If so to what amount and from whom ? OPP 4. Whether the driver of the offending vehicle was not holding a valid driving licence at the time of accident ? OPR 2 5. Whether the claim petition is not maintainable ? OPR 2 6. Relief. Ultimately, on appreciation of evidence, the Tribunal awarded compensation to the tune of Rs.2,00,000/- in favour of the claimant and against the appellant and respondent No.2 jointly and severally. A variety of contentions were raised by the appellant-insurance company including that no such accident took place. The deceased-driver was not holding a valid driving licence at the time of accident. The Insurance policy did not cover the risk of the driver. Heard. As regards the first contention, it is established from the statement of AW1 Kashmir Singh, (who lodged the FIR), the FIR Ex.A2 and post mortem report Ex.A1 that Yadavinder Singh driver of the offending vehicle died as a result of involvement of the motor vehicle, F.A.O.No. 642 of 2008(O&M) 3 therefore, the application under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, claiming compensation, could well be maintained by the claimant- respondent No.1. As regards the other contention that since the offending vehicle i.e. Tractor-trolley bearing registration No.PB-18-E-1384 was being used for carrying passengers, therefore, it was being done in contravention with the policy of the insurance company, therefore, claimant was not liable to seek compensation. In this regard, it may be observed that no claim has been set up with regard to any of the passengers, present in the offending vehicle at the time of accident, as alleged by the insurance company, and claim has been raised only with regard to the death of Yadavinder Singh, driver of the offending vehicle, who died on account of the involvement of the motor vehicle. Similarly, regarding the last contention that the tractor trolley was being driven in contravention with the terms of the policy of insurance as the risk of the driver was not covered. In this regard, it may be observed that deceased was not the passenger in the offending vehicle but a driver, regarding whom additional premium of Rs.100/- was paid on account of compulsory PA to cover the risk of owner-cum-driver. The words mentioned in the policy “for the risk of the owner-cum-driver” cannot be interpreted that it was only owner who could drive the vehicle but it could be stretched to say that the policy covered the risk of both, who may be the owner or the driver. Insurance Policy Ex.R4 further clarifies that the maximum limit of the risk covered by the policy was to the extent of Rs.2,00,000/-. As such, the compensation upto the extent of Rs.2,00,000/- could be awarded in case of death of owner or driver. No evidence has been led by the insurance company that the driver was not holding a valid driving licence. The onus to prove that the driver was not holding a valid driving licence was on the appellant which it has failed to shift. No other argument has been raised. Resultantly, finding no merit in the appeal, the same is dismissed. (A.N.Jindal) Judge 09.09.2009 mamta-II