IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH

Date of decision: 19.12.2025

Paramjit Kaur and others

...Appellants

Versus

National Insurance Company Limited

...Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS SURI

Present: Mr. Arun Abrol, Advocate for the appellants.

Mr. Suvir Dewan, Advocate for the respondent.

*****

VIKAS SURI, J.(Oral)

1. The present appeal has been preferred against the award dated 29.08.2005 passed by the learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Gurdaspur (for short, ‘the Tribunal’), whereby the claim petition filed by the claimant/appellants on account of the death of Sarwan Kumar in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 02.08.2001,

was dismissed.

2. Briefly, the claimant-appellants had preferred a claim petition under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, ‘MV Act’) on account of death of the husband of appellant No.1 and father of the other appellants. It was alleged that on 02.08.2021,

deceased Sarwan Kumar was returning to his village on his motorcycle bearing registration No.PB-58A-6983 and around 8.30 PM, he suddenly applied brakes of his motorcycle, causing the same to skid due to a slippery road. Upon falling from the motorcycle, the deceased suffered head injury. He was taken to Civil Hospital, Gurdaspur, where he died after some time. DDR No.45 dated 03.08.2001 was recorded by the police and proceedings under Section 174 Cr.P.C. were conducted. It was further averred that one Karnail Chand was following the deceased on a separate scooter, and had reported to the police the incident in which deceased Sarwan Kumar suffered head injury and succumbed to it despite medical aid. The deceased was riding his own motorcycle and hence, the claim petition is directed against the insurer of the motorcycle, i.e. respondent-insurance company.

2.1 Upon notice of the claim petition, the respondent contested the same by filing reply. By way of preliminary objection, the maintainability of the claim petition was challenged on the ground that the deceased was himself owner of the offending motorcycle and as such, was not a third party; and as per terms and conditions of the insurance policy, he cannot take advantage of the risk cover extended to a third party. The existence of a valid driving license was also disputed.

2.2 From the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed:

“1) Whether Sarwan Kumar died in vehicular accident on 2.8.2001 at about 7.30.Ρ.Μ. in the area of Pull Drain of village Allechak while himself driving Hero Honda such the No.PB-58-A 6983 and as claim petition maintainable?

OPR

2) Whether Sarwan Kumar deceased was not holding valid and effective driving license at the time of accident?

OPR

3) Whether the claimants-applicants entitled to claim are compensation ? If so, how much and against whom? OPA

4) Relief.”

2.3 The parties led their respective evidence and on consideration of the pleadings, the evidence produced and the respective contentions advanced by learned counsel for the parties, the Tribunal dismissed the claim petition by observing as under:

“In the case in hand also, deceased was owner of the insured offending motor cycle and has not taken any personal accident insurance because insurance policy totally is as silent about this aspect and such the respondent-insurance company is not liable to pay any compensation on account of death of the owner of the insured Motor Cycle and the claim-petition is not maintainable claimants are entitled to recover compensation from the respondent-Insurance Company.”

3. Aggrieved by the aforesaid, the claimant-appellants preferred the present appeal.

4. Learned counsel for the appellants has argued that the findings returned by the Tribunal regarding non-payment of premium of Rs.15/- to cover the risk of personal accident of the insured, is not made out as a perusal of the insurance policy (Ex.R1) would show that there is no column therein to reflect such a premium. It is further submitted that the risk of personal accident is deemed