IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

217 FAO-2647-2006 (O&M)

Date of Decision: May 08, 2025 Amarjit Kaur and others ......Appellants Vs.

Maghar Singh and another ......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA Present: Mr. Didar Singh, Advocate for Mr. S.S. Rangi, Advocate for the appellant (s).

Mr. Sandeep Suri, Advocate for respondent No.2-Insurance Company ----

S UDEEPTI SHARMA J. (ORAL)

1. The present appeal has been preferred against the award dated 08.05.2004 passed in the claim petition filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 by the Learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ludhiana (for short ‘The Tribunal’) vide which the claim petition filed by the appellants/claimants for grant of compensation, was dismissed.

FACTS NOT IN DISPUTE

2. The brief facts of the case as mentioned in the claim petition are that on 20.08.1999, Gajjan Singh (since deceased) was travelling in truck bearing registration No. PCE-9497. He was owner of this truck. Maghar Singh driver was driving the truck. The truck was being driven from Rajasthan and it was loaded with marble sheets. When the truck reached in the area of village Mehal Kalan on Barnala-Raikot Road, a stray cattle came on the road. Maghar Singh- driver of the truck could not control it. The truck fell into the ditches by the road side. The marble sheets broke the driver's cabin and hit Gajjan Singh.

He died at the spot due to multiple grievous injuries.

3. Upon notice of the claim petition, respondents appeared and filed written reply denying the factum of accident/compensation.

4. From the pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal framed the following issues:-

(1) Whether the petitioners are the legal representatives of deceased Gajjan Singh ?OPA (2) Whether Gajjan Singh died in the accident caused by the rash and negligent driving of Maghar Singh respondent while driving truck No. PCE-9497 ? OPA (3) Whether the petitioners are entitled to claim compensation. If so how much and from which of the respondents? OPA.

(4) Whether the driver of the truck in question had no valid and effective driving license at the time of accident. If so its effect.

OPR.

(5) Whether the owner of the truck had no valid documents of the truck at the time of the accident. If so its effect. OPR.

(6) Relief.

5. After taking into consideration the pleadings and the evidence on record, the learned Tribunal dismissed the claim-petition. Hence, the claimants/appellants filed the present appeal for grant of compensation.

SUBMISSIONS OF THE LEARNED COUNSELS FOR THE PARTIES

6. The learned counsel for the claimants-appellants contend that the claimants were entitled to compensation and the claim petition was wrongly dismissed by the learned Tribunal. Therefore, he prays that the present appeal be allowed and compensation be granted to the appellants/claimants.

7. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent- Insurance Company has argued that the deceased, being the owner of the offending vehicle, did not pay any premium towards personal accident cover under the insurance policy (Ex. R-1), and as such, the risk of the owner-driver was not covered. Therefore, he prays for dismissal of the present appeal.

8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the whole record of this case.

9. Relevant portion of the award passed by the Ld. Tribunal is reproduced as under:-

“ISSUE NO. 3

8. Amarjit Kaur petitioner deposed that her husband owned three trucks including the truck in question No. PCE-9497. He was transporter and agriculturist. His income was Rs.15,000/- per month.

9 Ex. R1 is copy of the insurance policy which shows that Rs. 2779/- were paid as basic premium. Rs. 45/- were paid for premium for the employees. Rs. 75/- were paid as premium for third party property damage. The owner's risk is not covered under the death of the owner of the truck No. PCE-9497. Now the question arises whether the petitioners are entitled to claim compensation on account of the death of Gajjan Singh, who wa