IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL. Delay Condonation Application No. 8607/2008 with A.O. No. 484/2008 Ms. Indra Bond ….. Appellant. Vs. National Insurance Company Ltd. Respondent. Sri Davesh Bishnoi, learned counsel for the appellant. Sri D.S. Patni, learned counsel for respondent. Hon’ble B.C. Kandpal, J. (Oral) Heard Sri Davesh Bishnoi, learned counsel for the appellant/applicant and Sri D.S. Patni, learned counsel for the respondent on delay condonation application and perused the affidavit filed in support thereto. 2- I find sufficient ground to condone the delay in filing the appeal. Accordingly the delay condonation application is allowed and the delay in filing the appeal is hereby condoned. 3- Admit. 4- Learned counsel for the parties have agreed to argue the appeal finally. Accordingly, I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 5- This appeal U/S 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act, arise out against the judgment and order dated 9-3-2006, passed by M.A.C.T./ III F.T.C., Nainital in MACT Case No. 228 of 2000, Indra Bond Vs. National Insurance Company. 2 6- Perusal of record shows that the appellant preferred a claim petition before the tribunal on the ground that on 3-12-99 brother of the claimant Rajendra Bond along with some other persons was returning to his home from Snow-view in jeep No. UP 03/1260 and when the said jeep reached near Polytechnic School, Mallital, at about 10-30 P.M. it met with accident due to rash and negligence of its driver, in which Rajendra Singh sustained grievous injuries and died at the spot. The deceased was 43 years of age and he was manager in Saattal Estate and used to earn Rs. 6,000/- per month. 7- The opposite party National Insurance Company filed the written statement and alleged that the deceased was the owner of the offending jeep and no premium was paid to cover the risk of the owner of the vehicle; he does not come in the category of third party, therefore, the claimant is not entitled to get any compensation. 8- Earlier the learned tribunal in this case has awarded a sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- as compensation against the National Insurance Company, vide judgment dated 7-8-2001. Against that order the insurance company preferred appeal before this Court and this court in appeal no. 1485/2001, remitted the matter to the tribunal and directed the tribunal to decide the case afresh, particularly, on the point as to whether the deceased owner was covered in the insurance policy or not. 9- Thereafter the learned tribunal vide impugned judgment and order dated 9-3-2006 has dismissed the petition and directed that if the claimant has already obtained any amount of compensation that shall be 3 returned to the National Insurance Company within a period of one month. 10- Feeling aggrieved the claimant has preferred this appeal. 11- The learned tribunal has recorded a categorical finding that cover note paper No. 6-C/3 covers the risk of six passengers and a driver only and no premium has been paid to cover the personal risk of the owner of the jeep, therefore, the insurance company cannot be held liable to pay the compensation in lieu of death of deceased owner of the jeep in the accident. I do not find any infirmity in the above finding recorded by the learned tribunal and the same is liable to be upheld. 12- In view of the above facts and circumstances of the case, the appeal lacks merit and is liable to be dismissed. 13- Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. Dated: 24-7-2009 (B.C. Kandpal, J.) ISB