FAO No. 3047 of 2010 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No. 3047 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision: 28.05.2010 National Insurance Co. Ltd. ....Appellant Versus Dharam Pal and others ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD K. SHARMA Present: - Mr. Paul S. Saini, Advocate, for the appellant. VINOD K. SHARMA, J.(ORAL) This appeal, by the Insurance Company, is directed against the award dated 16.2.2010, passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Rupnagar, allowing the claim petition filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The claim petition was filed on the pleadings, that Des Raj, driver of tempo No.PAT-9400 had gone with Sant Ram from Ghanauli to Mohali. The tempo was driven by Des Raj on the correct side of the road at a normal speed by observing traffic rules. When the tempo reached in the area of bus stand Rangilpur, a Maruti Swift Car bearing registration No.PB-12-TC-1121, which was driven by respondent No.2 in a rash and negligent manner came from Mohali side at high speed and struck against the tempo by coming on the wrong side of the road. The accident damaged the tempo totally. The driver and cleaner of the tempo sustained multiple grievous injuries in the accident. It was claimed, that the tempo was lying stationary for the last six months at the motor FAO No. 3047 of 2010 (O&M) -2- garage for repair. Thus, compensation for the loss was claimed. It was also pleaded, that FIR No.50 dated 9.4.2008 under Sections 279, 337 and 427 IPC was registered at Police Station Sadar Ropar. As already observed above, the damages on account of loss of income as well as damage to the tempo, was claimed. In the written statement, the claim was contested. FIR was said to have been lodged in connivance with the local police. Factum of accident itself was denied. It was asserted that car was insured. Respondent No.3 filed separate written statement and contested the claim by terming it to be bogus and false. It was said to be mala fide. It was pleaded by respondent No.3, that FIR was based on concocted story. Appellant contested the claim petition by pleading therein that respondent No.2 violated the terms and conditions of the insurance policy because it did not submit intimation of this accident to the appellant. It was claimed, that liability of the appellant would be limited under the Act. The plea that the drivers were not holding valid and effective driving licences, was also raised. Dispute was also raised qua the compensation claimed. The learned Tribunal, on appreciation of evidence, held, that damage to the vehicle belonging to Dharam Pal was proved. It was held, that the accident had occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the car bearing registration No.PB-12-TC-1121, driven by respondent No.2. Issues onus of which was on the appellant, were not pressed i.e. validity of the licence of the driver of the offending vehicle as well as FAO No. 3047 of 2010 (O&M) -3- violation of terms and conditions of the insurance policy. The claimant, on the basis of findings recorded, were awarded a sum of Rs.40,000/- (Rupees forty thousand only) as compensation. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant has challenged the findings of the learned Tribunal firstly by contending that the award passed by the learned Tribunal is very vague and indefinite, as under issue No.1, the learned Tribunal was to determine, whether any injuries were suffered by the claimant. Once it was held, that no injuries were suffered, therefore, no compensation was payable. The learned Tribunal could not have granted compensation for the damage to the tempo, specially when this relief could be claimed from the Insurance Company with whom tempo was insured. It is also the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant, that the learned Tribunal wrongly held the offending vehicle to be insured by mis-reading Ex.R-4 i.e. insurance policy. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant was, that the insurance policy against plate number was issued on 26.2.2008, whereas Maruti Swift Dezire model was launched on 27.3.2008. The accident had occurred on 8.4.2008, therefore, it could not be said that the plate insurance policy issued could cover the vehicle, which was not even in existence and was not even launched by the company, on the date of the issuance of the insurance policy. On consideration, I find no force in the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the appellant. It is well settled law, that the Court is to determine the lis between the parties as raised and understood. Once, the parties are aware of the case set up by the FAO No. 3047 of 2010 (O&M) -4- respective parties and lead evidence, the finding recorded cannot be reversed merely for the reason that the finding recorded is not covered under the issue framed. The law applies with more force to the MACT, as it is to decide the case in the summary manner, and is not bound by the strict rule of Civil Procedure Code and Evidence Act. It is only the principle of natural justice, which is required to be followed. In absence of proof of injuries, no compensation has been granted to the claimant. The compensation allowed for the damage to the vehicle, could not be denied merely because no specific issue was framed. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant, that it was for the claimant to get the claim of repair from his insurance company as the policy was comprehensive, is mis-conceived. Once, it was held that the accident, had occurred due to the negligence of the offending vehicle, it was for the claimant to claim compensation for repair also from the insurer of the offending vehicle and not from his insurance company, as contended. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that policy Ex.R-4 did not cover the vehicle manufactured later, is also mis- conceived. The plate policy is given to the dealer, to cover interim insurance for use of vehicle for trial purpose etc. The policy does not cover any particular vehicle nor any vehicle is mentioned in the insurance policy. It is for the insured to use it on any vehicle, which is sent for trial purpose, merely because a particular model is launched subsequently would not change the nature of policy, to cover vehicles which are sold by dealer/insurer. The contention of the learned counsel FAO No. 3047 of 2010 (O&M) -5- for the appellant that Ex.R-4 did not cover the offending vehicle is thus liable to be noticed to be rejected. No other point was urged. No merit. Dismissed. (Vinod K. Sharma) Judge May 28, 2010 R.S.