F.A.O.No.3546 of 2009 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. F.A.O.No.3546 of 2009 (O&M) Date of Decision:-7.8.2009 United India Insurance Company Limited. ...Appellant Versus Sarupi Devi and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG Present: Mr.V.M.Gupta, Advocate for the appellant. Rakesh Kumar Garg, J. (Oral): This is Insurer's appeal challenging the impugned award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Hisar, whereby the respondent-claimants have been awarded compensation on account of death of one Rajpal Singh in a motor vehicular accident caused due to rash and negligent driving of respondent No.6. The appellant-Insurance Company has filed the present appeal on the ground that the offending vehicle was being driven in breach of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy as the driver of the offending vehicle was not holding a valid and effective driving licence. Apart from the aforesaid ground raised, the Insurance Company has also challenged the impugned award on quantum of compensation etc. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by the Tribunal:- F.A.O.No.3546 of 2009 (O&M) 2 1. Whether the accident in question took place due to rash and negligent driving of Matador bearing registration No.HR-39-A-0695 by respondent No.1 resulting into death of Rajpal Singh as alleged?OPP 2. If issue No.1 is proved whether the claimants are entitled for compensation, if so to what amount and form whom?OPP 3. Whether the petition is not filed in accordance with the provisions of law?OPR3 4. Whether the petition is result of collusion in between the claimants and respondents No.1 & 2?OPR3 5. Whether the respondent No.1 was not having a valid driving licence and the truck in question was being driven in violation of terms and conditions of insurance policy at the time of accident?OPR3. 6. Relief. A perusal of the impugned award shows that while accepting the claim of the respondents, the Tribunal held that the appellant-Insurance Company has failed to prove that the driver of the offending vehicle was not holding a valid driving licence and that the vehicle in question was being driven in violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. While recording this finding, the Tribunal has also recorded a fact that no evidence was led by the Insurance Company despite the fact that the onus was upon it to prove these issues. The Insurance Company was not granted permission F.A.O.No.3546 of 2009 (O&M) 3 under Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short “the Act”) to take all those defences which are available to owner and driver of the offending vehicle. In the absence of any such permission by the Tribunal, the appeal filed by the Insurance Company on the question of quantum is not maintainable. As far as the argument raised by the counsel for the appellant with regard to the breach of terms and conditions of the insurance policy and the fact that the driver of the offending vehicle was not holding a valid driving licence, the same is not supported by any evidence on record of the Tribunal. Moreover, there is nothing on record from which it can be made out that even the aforesaid ground of breach of terms and conditions of the insurance policy or that the driver of the offending vehicle was not holding a valid driving licence was argued at the time of arguments. The contention of the appellant that the claim petition was the result of collusion between the claimants and owner and driver of the offending vehicle is also not supported from any evidence/document on record. In view of the aforesaid, I find no merit in this appeal. Dismissed. The amount of Rs.25,000/- deposited by the appellant alongwith this appeal under Section 173 of the Act may be transmitted to the Tribunal for disbursement to the claimants. 7.8.2009 (Rakesh Kumar Garg) AS Judge