IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA FAO (MVA) No.90 of 2023 Reserved on : 22.4.2025 Date of decision: 17.7.2025 Gurpreet Singh …Appellant.

Versus Jainam & others …Respondents.

Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Vivek Singh Thakur, Judge.

Whether approved for reporting? Yes.

For the Appellants : Mr. Manohar Lal Sharma, Advocate.

For the Respondents : Respondent No.1 – ex-parte.

Ms Sneh Bhimta, Advocate, as Court Guardian for respondent No.2.

Mr. Jagdish Thakur, Advocate, for respondent No.3.

Vivek Singh Thakur, Judge The appellant, by way of this appeal, has assailed award dated 1^st December, 2022 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chamba in MACT Registration No. 95 of 2020 titled as Jainam and another vs. Go Digit General Insurance Company Ltd. and another, whereby liability to pay compensation, to the tune of Rs.6 lacs along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of petition till …2…

realization thereof, has been fastened upon present appellant who was respondent No.2 in the claim petition.

2. Respondents No.1 and 2 were claimants before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (in short ‘MACT’), respondent No.3 is Insurance Company which was respondent No1 before the MACT and appellant, registered owner of the vehicle in question, was respondent No.2 before the MACT.

3. The accident, cause of present lis, had occurred on 7^th March, 2020 at about 10.45 AM, when car bearing Registration No.PB-11R-1984, being driven by Husain Ali, predecessor of the claimants, from Chamba to Silagharat met with an accident at Nand Gaon near Silagharat as it went off the road causing injuries to four occupants of vehicle including driver Husain Ali. Husain Ali, Shukar Deen and Roshan Deen succumbed to injuries and expired on the same date. Rafi Mohammad had received minor injuries.

4. Regarding this accident, FIR No. 71 dated 7^th March, 2020 was registered in Police Station Sadar Chamba wherein as per investigation, Husain Ali was found driving the vehicle rashly and negligently and report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. was submitted by the Investigating Officer in the Court on 31^st March, 2020.

5. In claim petition, preferred by claimants under Section 163-A of Motor Vehicles Act (in short ‘MV Act’), apart from other details, it was stated in Columns No. 5, 10 and 15 that deceased …3…

Husain Ali was driver of vehicle having monthly income of `3300/- per month and appellant Gurpreet Singh was owner of the motor vehicle.

6. In reply filed by Insurance Company, it was contended that Husain Ali had purchased the vehicle from Jasvir Singh on 18.02.2020 to whom vehicle was sold by Gurpreet Singh on 03.04.2019 and therefore, claim petition on behalf of his legal heirs was not maintainable under Section 163-A of MV Act because Husain Ali, driving the vehicle as an owner, was himself rash and negligent and therefore, claim petition was not maintainable, and further that vehicle was being driven in contravention of terms and conditions of Insurance Policy and insured Gurpreet Singh had intentionally made the breaches of terms and conditions of Policy and, therefore, Insurance Company was not liable to pay any compensation.

7. In response to claim petition, reply was filed by Gurpreet Singh on 23^rd July, 2021. In preliminary objections, it was stated that petition was not maintainable in present form and petitioners had not come to the Tribunal with clean hands. In reply on merits, respondent had admitted the place, date and time of accident as well as registration of FIR as detailed in paras 8 and 9 of the claim petition. Contents of paras 5, 10 and 15 of claim petition were denied being incorrect with averments that petitioners be put to strict proof to prove the averments made in these paras. Registration number of car PB-11R-1984 as …4…

mentioned in para 14 of the petition was also denied by referring registration number of car mentioned in FIR and final report of Police/Investigating Officer wherein registration number of vehicle involve