IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO-459-1999 (O&M)

Date of decision: 04.02.2025 National Insurance Company Limited ...Appellant Versus Rani Devi and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS BAHL Present: Mr. Deepak Suri, Advocate and Mr. Brij Sharma, Advocate for the appellant.

Mr. Bhag Singh, Advocate for the respondents.

****

VIKAS BAHL, J. (ORAL)

1. Challenge in the present appeal is to the award dated 18.11.1998 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ambala (hereinafter to be referred as “the Tribunal”) vide which the claim petition filed by the claimants under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 for grant of compensation, had been allowed and an amount of Rs.3 lacs had been awarded in favour of the claimants as compensation along with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of petition till the date of payment.

2. Learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company has submitted that the appellant is aggrieved with the finding on issue No.3, inasmuch as, in the present case, RW1 Registering and Licensing Clerk, who had been examined by the Insurance Company had stated that no licence was issued by the Licencing Authority, Solan in favour of Baldev Singh who was the driver and thus, in view of the same, the Insurance Company could not have been made liable. It is submitted that solely on the said point, the finding on the said issue deserves to be set aside and the present appellant-Insurance Company deserves to be absolved of its liability.

3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents- claimants, on the other hand, has opposed the present appeal and has brought to the notice of this Court that in pursuance of the order dated 07.02.2002, amount of compensation had been released to the claimants and the impugned award had been acted upon. It is submitted that in the present case, the evidence of Jasbir Singh-RW2, report of the Licensing Authority, Patiala Ex.R3, evidence of Harinder Singh-RW3 with respect to the renewal of the driving licence as well as other evidence on record clearly establishes that the finding of the Tribunal in para 11 with respect to issue No.3 is absolutely in accordance with law and deserves to be upheld. In support of his arguments, he has relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of United India Insurance Company Limited Vs. Lehru and others, reported as (2003) 3 Supreme Court Cases 338

4. This Court has heard learned counsel for the parties and has perused the paper book.

5. The claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 was filed on behalf of four claimants i.e., widow, two sons and daughter of Pala Singh who had died in the accident that had taken place on

18.05.1996 with the offending vehicle i.e., tanker/truck bearing registration No.PB-11F-9827, of which Baldev Singh was the driver and M/s Hemkunt Service Station, Sirhind Road, Patiala was the owner and the same was insured with the appellant-Insurance Company.

6. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by the Tribunal:-

“1. Whether the accident in question took place due to rash and negligent driving of truck No.PB11F-9827 by respondent No.1 causing the death of Pala Singh, as alleged? OPP.

2. If issue No.1 is proved, whether the claimants are entitled to compensation, if so, to what amount and from whom?OPP.

3. Whether the tanker in question was being driven without valid driving licence, registration certificate and route permit at the time of alleged accident and in violation of terms and conditions of insurance policy, as alleged? OPR3.

4. Relief.”

7. Under issue No.1, it was held by the Tribunal that the accident in question had taken place due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of tanker/truck bearing registration No.PB-11F-9827 thus, causing injuries to Pala Singh who died on account of the said accident. The said finding has not been challenged before this Court. Under Issue Nos.