In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh F.A.O. No. 3469 of 2008 Date of decision: September 15, 2009 Rakesh Kumar .. Appellant Vs. United India Insurance Company Limited .. Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.N. Jindal Present: Mr. S.K. Yadav, Advocate for Mr. R.D. Yadav, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. R.C. Gupta, Advocate for the respondent-Insurance Co. A.N. Jindal, J This appeal has arisen out of the award dated10.3.2008 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Rewari, dismissing the claim petition filed by the claimant-injured under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act seeking compensation on account of the injuries suffered by him in a motor vehicular accident on 11.6.2004. Brief resume of facts is that on 11.6.2004, the claimant along with his companions namely Ran Singh son of Nanak Ram and Udai Vir son of Raj Karan, was returning to their village in their Indica car bearing registration No.HR-36E-6944. At about 10.00 p.m. when they had just passed the bus stand of the village Zadra, two stray animals suddenly appeared on the road, as a result of which, he lost his control and the car driven by him struck against the tree. Resultantly, the claimant suffered multiple grievous injuries including fracture of left leg/thigh. A DDR No.6 dated 12.6.2004 was got recorded. Ultimately this claim petition seeking for compensation was filed. The claim petition was contested by the respondents. Insurance Company also refuted the allegations and raised mainly a prime ground that since the claimant himself was owner and driver of the vehicle, therefore, it was not a third party risk, as such the claimant was not entitled to any compensation. Second objection raised by it was that the accident did not take place as stated by the claimant and the injuries suffered by him were F.A.O. No. 3469 of 2008 -2- *** not the result of accident. No replication was filed. From the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed :- 1. Whether the petitioner met with an accident arising out of the use of the vehicle bearing registration No.HR-36- E-6944?OPP 2. If issue No.1 is proved, whether the claimant is entitled for the compensation, if so how much and from whom?OPP 3. Whether the petition is not maintainable as alleged in para No.1 and 2 of the preliminary objections?OPR 4. Whether the petitioner has no cause of action and locus standi to file the present petition?OPR 5. Whether petitioner had no valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident if so its effect?OPR 6. Relief. In order to prove the claim, the claimant examined Dr. Virender Yadav (PW1), Dr. S.K. Saini (PW2) and he himself stepped into the witness box as PW-3. To the contrary, the respondent tendered into evidence certified copy of the policy Ex.R-1 and Ex.R-2. On scrutiny of the record, the Tribunal dismissed the claim petition mainly on the ground that the claimant did not suffer any such injury as envisaged in the policy entered into between the claimant and the Insurance Company. Arguments heard. The insurance policy Ex.R-1 indicates that it was policy under the category of Private Car Package Policy. The claimant had also paid a premium of Rs.100/- for compulsory PA to the owner-driver up to the amount of Rs.2 lacs. The conditions of the policy tendered on record reveals that the company had undertaken to compensate the owner-driver in case of bodily injury/death sustained by the owner-driver of the vehicle in direct connection with the vehicle insured or whilst driving or mounting into/dismounting from the vehicle insured or whilst travelling in it as a co- F.A.O. No. 3469 of 2008 -3- *** driver caused by violent accidental external and visible means which independent of any other case shall within six calendar months of such result in causing in (i) death; (ii) loss of two limbs or sight or two eyes or one limb and sight or one eye; (iii) loss of one limb or sight of one eye; (iv) permanent total disablement from injuries other than named above. The disability certificate (Ex.PW2/A) proved on record indicates that the claimant suffered physical disability to the extent of 10.7% on account of post traumatic mild stiffness or right hip and knee cum mild loss of stability. This certificate also indicates some partial temporary displacement of some part of the body but does not indicate any permanent disability of whole of the body. Thus, case of the claimant is not covered by any of the categories of injuries as mentioned in the conditions of the policy Ex.R1. In the wake of aforesaid discussions, findings no merit in the appeal the same is dismissed. September 15, 2009 (A.N. Jindal) deepak Judge