IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL. A.O. No. 133/2007 Smt. Rukma Devi ..Claimant/Appellant. Versus The New India Assurance Company Limited .. Opp.Party/Respondent. Sri N.S. Pundir, Advocate for the appellant. Sri R.B. Agarwal, Advocate for the respondent. Dated: 4-12-2008 UHon’ble B.C. Kandpal, J. This appeal, under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988, arise against the judgment and order dated 8-2-2007, passed by Motor Accident Claim Tribunal/ District Judge, Uttarkashi, in MACT Case No. 24 of 2006, Smt. Rukma Devi Vs. The New India Assurance Company, whereby the claim petition was dismissed. 2- Brief facts of the case are that on 3-12-2004 Mahavir Singh Chauhan, husband of the claimant/appellant, was going to Dehradun from Uttarkashi in Maruti Van bearing registration No. U.P. 07-K- 8077. The said Maruti Van was being driven by its owner-cum-driver Sri Budhi Ballabh in a rash and negligent manner. At about 10-25 A.M. when the said vehicle reached near Pali Gaon on Uttarkash-Rishikesh Motor Marg, it met with an accident due to which Mahavir Singh Chauhan sustained grievous injuries and died at the spot. Therefore, the claimant has preferred the claim petition for compensation. 3- The New India Assurance Company contested the claim by filing its written statement and alleged that 2 the Maruti Van bearing registration No. U.P. 07-K- 8077 was insured for the period 8-3-2004 to 7-3-2007 as private car and the premium was paid only for the driver and no premium was paid for the passenger, therefore, the insurance company cannot be held liable to pay the compensation. 4- After framing issues in the claim petition, the parties adduced evidence in support of their case. The learned tribunal after hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the material on record dismissed the claim petition. 5- Feeling aggrieved the claimant has preferred this appeal before this Court. 6- I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 7- Learned counsel for the claimant/ appellant has submitted that the as per insurance policy premium of 8 passengers has been paid by the owner of the Maruti Van, therefore, the claimant is entitled to get compensation from the insurance company for the death of the deceased and the learned tribunal has committed a patent error in rejecting the claim. 8- Learned counsel for the insurance company refuted the above submission and submitted that premium for driver-cum-owner only was paid by the owner of the Maruti Van and no premium was paid for covering the risk of other persons, therefore, the insurance has rightly been not held liable to pay the compensation. 3 9- From perusal of the record it reveals that the owner-cum-driver of the Maruti Van in question has also died in the accident, but the claimant did not make party to the legal heirs of the owner of the said vehicle in the claim petition. The New India Assurance Company has been arrayed as sole respondent in the claim petition and the compensation has been claimed from the insurer of the said Maruti Car. The contention of the New India Assurance Company is that the Maruti Van in question was insured with it as a private car for the period 8-3- 2004 to 7-3-2007 and the premium has been paid only for the driver and owner and no premium was paid for other person. Paper No. 25-C is the cover note of insurance policy which reveals that compulsory premium of Rs. 100/- for owner-driver and Rs. 25/- for one employee has been paid and no other premium was taken from the owner. The cover note further reveals that the car was insured as a private Car. Therefore the contention of counsel for the claimant/appellant is not tenable that premium for 8 persons was paid by the owner of the Car. In the aforesaid circumstances the insurance company cannot be held liable to pay the compensation. The learned Tribunal has rightly recorded a finding that the insurance company is not liable to pay any compensation for the death of Mahavir Singh Chauhan in the said accident caused by Maruti Van in question. 10- Here it may also be mentioned that the deceased Mahavir Singh Chauhan, besides some other persons, was travelling in the Maruti Car in question in the capacity of a passenger. P.W.2 Megh Singh, who was also travelling in the Maruti Van, has deposed that he, Mahavir Singh Chauhan, Budhi Ballabh and Madan Gopal Chamoli were travelling in the said Maruti Car 4 and the accident has occurred due to rash and negligence of the driver. Hence it is established that the accident has occurred due to rash and negligence of the driver and in all four persons were inside the said car. The owner/driver of the Car has also died in this accident but his legal heirs have not been made party to the claim petition, therefore, the claim petition was dismissed. I do not find any illegality and infirmity in the impugned judgment and the finding recorded by the tribunal requires no interference in this appeal. 11- The appeal lacks merit and is liable to be dismissed. 12- Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. The impugned judgment and order dated 8-2-2007 is hereby confirmed. (B.C. Kandpal, J.) ISB