IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. FAO NO.1248/2006(O&M) Date of Decision:16.4.2009. Anshul Enterprises Pvt.Ltd. ..........Appellant Versus Ranbir Singh ..........Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH. Present: Mr.Sandeep Kotla,Advocate for Mr.Puneet Leekha,Advocate for the applicant-appellant. JASWANT SINGH,J(Oral). CM No.3323-CII/2009. Heard learned counsel for the applicant-appellant. For the reasons stated in the application, the same is allowed and the order dated 21.2.200 vide which the main appeal bearing FAO No.1248 of 2006 was dismissed for non-prosecution is recalled and the appeal is restored to its original number. On the oral request made by the learned counsel, the main appeal bearing FAO NO.1248/2006 is taken up for hearing today. FAO NO.1248/2006. Appellants-claimant has preferred this appeal against the award dated 1.12.2005 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Panipat (for short Tribunal) whereby its claim petition bearing no.231 of 2005, seeking compensation to the tune of Rs.2.5 lacs on account of loss of its goods, FAO NO.1248/2006(O&M) 2 being ferried by truck No.HR-45-3786 (hereinafter referred to as the offending vehicle), that were gutted in a fire alongwith the offending vehicle on 23.5.2002, was dismissed. Briefly stated the facts of the case leading to the filing of the present appeal are that on 23.5.2002, shoddy yarn worth Rs.1,15,000/- was booked by the appellants-claimants for being transported from Panipat to Chippiwar, Pilkhua (Uttar Pradesh), by the offending vehicle being driven by respondent no.1, owned by respondent no.2 and insured by respondent no.3. According to the claim petition the offending vehicle, being driven in a rash and negligent manner, on reaching Railway Road, Pilkhua hit against an electric pole sparking a short circuit and soon the goods alongwith the offending vehicle were reduced to ashes. With these allegations, the claimants sought compensation from respondents 1 to 3 on account of rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by respondent no.1. Respondents filed written statements. While respondents 1 and 2 in their joint written statement supported the claim of the claimant-appellant, respondent no.3-Insurance Company denied its liability to pay the compensation on the ground that (i)no marine transit policy was obtained by the claimants in respect of the goods being ferried in the offending vehicle; and (ii) the claimant was not a third party. Issues were framed. Parties led evidence in support of their respective pleas. Learned Tribunal, after hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on the basis of material available on record, dismissed the claim petition vide impugned award. Hence the present appeal. FAO NO.1248/2006(O&M) 3 After hearing the learned counsel for the claimant-appellant, I find no illegality in the impugned award. In support of its claim petition, appellant-claimant examined its Director Rajinder Singla as PW1, who imputed rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle. However, testimony of this witness was not believed by the learned Tribunal Court, as he had not been an eye witness to the accident in question. I am also of the considered opinion, that in the absence of any proof that the claimant had obtained any marine transit insurance policy, the Insurance Company could not be held liable to indemnify the claimant for the loss of goods. Learned counsel for the appellant has not been able to refer to any legal provision under which in the absence of a marine transit insurance policy, the Insurer is liable to pay compensation. No merit. Dismissed. 16.4.2009. (Jaswant Singh) joshi Judge