F. A. O. No. 2326 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Case No. : F. A. O. No. 2326 of 2009 Date of Decision : May 14, 2009 Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. .... Appellant Vs. Bimla Devi and others .... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL * * * Present : Mr. Vishal Chaurdhri, Advocate for Mr. Vinod Chaudhri, Advocate for the appellant. * * * L. N. MITTAL, J. (Oral) : This is appeal by insurer of the offending vehicle impugning Award dated 03.12.2008 of learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ambala, whereby claim petition filed by respondents no.1 to 5 herein under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (in short – the Act) stands allowed and compensation of Rs.4,23,000/- has been allowed to the claimants for the death of Subhash Chand caused in a motor vehicular accident. The deceased himself was driving the motorcycle, which stood insured with the appellant. Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently contended that claim petition under Section 163-A of the Act is not maintainable in a case, F. A. O. No. 2326 of 2009 2 where the deceased himself was guilty of rashness and negligence or in other words, where the accident occurred due to fault of deceased himself. Reliance in support of this proposition has been placed on a judgment of Karnataka High Court in the case of Appaji (since deceased) and another vs. M. Krishna and another reported as 2004 ACJ 1289. The contention cannot be accepted. In the instant case, there is neither any pleading nor any evidence to substantiate the aforesaid contention nor there is any finding by the Tribunal that the deceased himself was responsible for causing the accident. On the other hand, the accident allegedly occurred when the motorcycle of the deceased was hit by some unknown vehicle. Consequently, ratio of law laid down in the aforesaid judgment is not applicable to the instant case. In addition to the aforesaid, a Division Bench of this Court in the case of New India Assurance Company Ltd. vs. Shyamo Chauhan and others reported as Vol. CXXXIX-(2005-1) P. L. R. 299 has laid down that claim petition under Section 163-A of the Act is maintainable even for the death of driver of the vehicle. In view of ratio of law laid down in the said judgment, the aforesaid contention raised on behalf of the appellant-insurer has to be negatived. The sole contention advanced at the hands of the appellant being found without merit, the appeal is hereby dismissed. May 14, 2009 ( L. N. MITTAL ) monika JUDGE