C.R. No.570 of 2005 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R. No.570 of 2005 (O&M) Date of Decision: 22.10.2009 United India Insurance Co. Ltd. .....Petitioner Versus Jaswinder Kaur and others ...Respondents Present: Mr. D.P. Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner. None for the respondents. CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? Yes 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? Yes 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Yes -.- K. KANNAN J.(ORAL) 1. The revision is against the award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ludhiana awarding to the claimants Rs.60,000/- with interest @ 6%. The Court found that the death of Nirbhai Singh was in a motor accident but found that the particular vehicle bearing No.PB-10N-0108, which was said to have been involved in the accident had really not been involved. The Tribunal had however applied a strange logic that when a death had been in a motor accident, the Insurance Company shall make the payment. 2. The revision is field by the Insurance Company on the ground that there is an error of jurisdiction and hence challenged C.R. No.570 of 2005 -2- by way of revision that when the Tribunal found that the vehicle had not been involved, there was no way by which either the owner of the vehicle or the insurer could be made liable. Contract of an insurance is a contract of indemnity and if only the offending vehicle is tracked and it found to be a vehicle which was lawfully insured then Insurance Company could be made liable. Although the grounds of defence under Section 149 of the Motor Vehicles Act do not extend to disputing the quantum of compensation, the jurisdictional fact that an accident was by the use of motor vehicle and that the particular vehicle had been involved, shall go to the root of the matter and they shall be available to the insurer to contend that there was no motor accident or that a particular vehicle was never involved in the accident. In this case, the Tribunal itself found that the vehicle, which was said to have been involved in the accident had not been so involved. The Tribunal found fault and commented about the so-called inefficiency of the investigating agency in failing to track the real culprit. In such an event, the award directing the Insurance Company to make the payment is wholly without jurisdiction and untenable. 3. If the petitioner could not establish the involvement of the 2nd respondent's vehicle, the Court could have only directed relief to the claimants under a scheme provided under Section 163 of the Motor Vehicles Act. The claimant shall be entitled to C.R. No.570 of 2005 -3- approach the authority constituted under the Motor Vehicles Act in the State for disbursal of compensation in case of "hit and run" motor accidents. If such a claim is made by the claimants, any delay in making the claim shall be condoned and the competent authority shall treat this judgment itself as proof of death of the deceased-Nirbhai Singh as having been occasioned in a motor accident and proceed to give the compensation as provided under the relevant rules from out of the fund constituted under the scheme settled under the Motor Vehicles Act. 4. The award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, under the circumstances, is set aside and the revision petition is allowed with liberty granted to the claimants as mentioned above. There shall be, however, no direction as to costs. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE October 22, 2009 Pankaj*