FAO No. 4172 of 2008 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No. 4172 of 2008 (O&M) Date of decision : 4.5.2010 ... Oriental Insurance Co. ................Appellant vs. Kamla Devi and others .................Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice K.C. Puri Present: Sh. Vinod Chaudhri, Advocate for the appellant Sh. D.R. Sharma, Advocate for respondents No. 5 and 6. ... K.C. Puri, J. (Oral) This is an appeal directed by Insurance company against the award dated 22.5.2008 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kurukshetra, vide which the claim petition preferred by legal heirs of Ram Singh– deceased was accepted and respondents were directed to pay an amount of Rs.3,46,000/- as compensation. The facts gathered from the record are that Ram Singh – deceased was a pillion rider on motor cycle bearing registration No.HR-05Q-2725 being driven by respondent No.1 Chandgi Ram. It is alleged that respondent No.1 was driving the motorcycle at a FAO No. 4172 of 2008 -2- normal speed and when they reached near Kaler Patrol Pump on Kurukshetra-Pipli road, at about 8.30 P.M., a while colour Qualis came from behind, which was being driven rashly and negligently and at a very high speed and hit their motorcycle from behind, on which both the occupants i.e. Ram Singh – deceased and Chandgi Ram fell down on the road. Ram Singh succumbed to the injuries on 30.10.2005 at PGI, Chandigarh. Respondents No. 1 and 2 – driver and owner of motorcycle No. HR-05Q-2725 filed written statement admitting the accident, as well as, the manner of accident. The claim petition was contested by respondent No.3 – Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., and it is alleged that there is no negligence on the part of driver of motorcycle. Moreover, FIR has been registered against the driver of Qualis. So, the Insurance company is not liable. From the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed:- 1. Whether deceased Ram Singh died on account of use of vehicle i.e. Motor cycle No. HR-05Q-2725 on a public place by Chandgi Ram respondent No.1? OPP. 2. Whether the petitioners and proforma respondents No. 4 and 5 are entitled to compensation on account of death of Ram Singh caused in the aforesaid accident? If so, in what amount? OPP. 3. Whether the respondent – driver of Motor cycle No. HR- 05Q-2725 was not having valid driving licence at the time of alleged accident? OPR-3 FAO No. 4172 of 2008 -3- 4. Whether the petition is liable to be dismissed in view of preliminary objections and additional pleas taken by the Insurance company? OPR-3 5. Relief. Learned Tribunal, after adjudication, recorded the finding on issue No. 1 in favour of the claimants. Issue No. 2 was also decided in favour of the claimants and there were held entitled to claim Rs.3,46,000/- as detailed in the award. Issues No. 3 and 4 were determined against respondent No.3 and consequently, the claim petition was accepted and all the respondents were jointly and severally held liable to pay the amount of compensation. Feeling dissatisfied with the award dated 22.5.2008, the Insurance company has preferred the present appeal. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the owner has not paid the additional premium for a pillion rider and in view of authority reported as United India Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Tilak Singh and others 2006 ACJ 1441, the Insurance Company is not liable. On the other hand, counsel for the owner and driver has supported the judgment of the Tribunal. I have heard learned counsel for both the sides and have also gone through the record of the case. In this case, the only controversy left to be determined is whether in a case of package policy, the Insurance Company is liable to pay amount of compensation in respect of pillion rider. So, for as United India Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Tilak Singh and others' case FAO No. 4172 of 2008 -4- (Supra), is concerned, that authority is distinguishable to the facts of the present case, as the said authority relates to the Insurance Policy which was an “Act policy” alone and not relates to the package policy. The effect of package policy has been considered by the High Court of Karnataka in the authority reported as Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. B.M. Niranjan and another 2008 ACJ 554. In view of the said authority, the Insurance company is liable to pay the amount of compensation. Consequently, the appeal is without any merit and the same stands dismissed. ( K.C. Puri ) 4.5.2010 Judge chugh