F.A.O. NO. 1480 OF 2002 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH F.A.O. NO. 1480 OF 2002 Date of decision:9th September, 2010 Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., Regional Officer, Surindra Building, SCO No. 109-111, Sector 17-D, Chandigarh through its duly constituted Attorney. .......Appellant Versus Gurwinder Kaur and others ........Respondents BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.KANNAN Present: Mr. Inderjeet Sharma, Advocate and Mr. Pardeep Bedi, Advocate, for the appellant. Mr. Vijay Pal, Advocate as Amicus Curiae. 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes/No 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?Yes/No 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Yes/No K.Kannan, J.(Oral) 1. The Insurance Company is on appeal denying the liability on the ground that the deceased died out of the motor accident where the insured's vehicle was not involved in the accident. The contention was that the accident was said to have been taken place on 7.06.1997, and there had been no FIR registered on the same day implicating the insured's vehicle. DDR was recorded for the first time on 10.06.1997, when the owner of the insured's vehicle is alleged to have brought a compromise with the claimant and stated that they were F.A.O. NO. 1480 OF 2002 2 compromising the matter and owner was giving Rs. 25,000/- to the claimants. The contention therefore, was that the vehicle was planted to claim compensation as though it was involved in the accident but actually it was not involved. It was also contended that there was no medical evidence to show that the deceased had been involved in any motor accident and even hospital records were not produced before the Court. 2. Mr. Vijay Pal, Amicus Curiae points out that the contentions raised by the Insurance Company are totally unfounded and there was no objection at all by the Insurance Company at the trial regarding dispute of the involvement of the insured's vehicle. The contention was only with reference to the alleged non possession of an effective driving licence and that the claimants were barred from filing the petition since they have already received Rs. 25,000/- from the owner of the offending vehicle. It was only contended that the alleged owner was not the actual owner and the registered owner as per the Registration Certificate Book had not been impleaded as a party. 3. I have gone through the written statement filed by the Insurance Company-appellant and I do not find that the claimants have disputed the accident or the involvement of the insured's vehicle in the written statement. With no such pleadings, the Insurance Company cannot be heard to contend that the insured's vehicle had not been involved in the accident. Even as regards the contention of the Insurance Company that the claimants had already received Rs. 25,000/- from the insurer, F.A.O. NO. 1480 OF 2002 3 there was not even a suggestion put to the claimant when she gave evidence making a claim for compensation that she had received sufficient amount as compensation. Even this, the alleged payment of Rs. 25,000/- by the owner, is said to have been recorded in the DDR could create no defence for the insurer to deny the claimants the right of compensation. 4. The award of the Tribunal is confirmed and the appeal is dismissed. The Amicus Curiae shall be paid the fee as per the scale of fee permissible from the Amicus Curiae fund. [K.KANNAN] JUDGE 9th September, 2010 Shivani Kaushik