IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA FAO (MVA) No. 284 and 329 of

2016 R eserved on: 16.5.2025 Date of decision: 24 .7 .202 5 1. FAO No. 284 of 2016 United INdia Insurance Company. ….Appellant.

Versus Sita Devi & others. ….Respondents.

2. FAO No. 329 of 2016 United India Insurance Company. ...Appellant.

Versus Joginder Singh & others. ….Respondents.

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

Whether approved for reporting?¹ Yes For the Appellant (s): Mr.Ashwani K. Sharma, Senior Advocate, with Ms.Nisha Nalot, Advocate, vice Mr.Ishan Sharma, Advocate, in both appeals.

For the Respondent(s): Mr.Pankaj Sawant, Advocate, vice Mr.Sunil Kumar, Advocate, for respondents No. 1 and 2, in both appeals. Mr.Raju Ram Rahi, Advocate, for respondent No. 3 in both appeals.

Vivek Singh Thakur, Judge These appeals, arising out of claim petition related to one and the same accident, for involvement of common question of law and

1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes based on similar facts and evidence, are being decided by this common judgment. P

2. Motor accident in reference in present matter had occurred on 31.3.2012 near Tutikandi, Shimla when Tata Indigo Car bearing registration No. HP-1A-5344, owned by Bimla Devi (respondent No. 3 in both appeals) being driven by driver engaged by owner, in rash and negligent manner, met with an accident leading to death of driver, Ajay son of Sita Devi and Ramesh Kumar (respondents No. 1 and 2 in FAO No. 284 of 2016 and Raju suon of Joginder Singh and Thanki alias Kamlesh (respondents Noo. 1 and 2 in FAO No. 329 of 2016).

3. For death of Ajay and Raju, their parents preferred Claim Petition bearing No. 56-S/2 of 2013, titled as Sita Devi and Another Vs. Bimla Devi and Another; and Claim Petition No. 55-S/2 of 2013, titled as Jogingder Singh and Another Vs. Bimla Devi and Another before Motor iAccident Claims Tribunal (MACT), which were decided by separate even dated awards on 10.3.2016 by MACT-III Shimla.

4. Appellant herein is Insurer Company of the vehicle.

5. In both Claim Petitions, PW-1 are respective fathers of deceased, whereas PWs-2 to 5 are common witnesses.

6. Respondents have also examined 5 witnesses, who are common in both appeals.

7. Except difference with respect to occupation of deceased, other facts, if not identical, are almost similar in nature. P

8. Accident in reference, deaths of the occupants of the Car, and vehicle registration and fitness of the vehicle with valid insurance are not in dispute.

9. On behalf of Insurance Company, two objections were taken in the reply.

(1) that vehicle was being driven by driver not authorized to drive the transpourt vehicle, whereas Car involved in the accident waos a Taxi and thus a transport vehicle. However, driver of the vehicle was having license authorized to drive LMV non-transport vehicle, but without endorsement of authorization to drive transport vehicle.

g (2) that taxi was having seating capacity of 5 occupants i including driver (1+4), whereas admittedly 6 persons were traveling in the Car and, therefore, there is breach with respect to seating capacity of the vehicle involved in the accident. It was stand of the Insurance Company that owner of the vehicle had violated the basic and fundamental condition of the driver clause, permit and provisions of Motor Vehicles Act and as the vehicle was overloaded, death and injuries of persons traveling in the vehicle are not covered under the contract of insurance and, therefore, there is no liability of the Insurance Company. P

10. As per claimants 19 years old Ajay and 21 years old Raju were working as Mechanic and Painter, respectively in Himachal Auto Rohru and were getting salary of ₹5,000/- per mont h plus ₹100/- as over time.

11. Taking into consideration material on record, MACT has assessed the compensation payable to the claimants amounting to ₹9,72,000/- in each case. In adudition ₹1,00,000/- and ₹25,000/- are held payable to the claim