IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Reserved on : 28.02.2025 Pronounced on : 06.03.2025 Smt. Kitabo and others ......Appellants Vs.

Manjeet Singh and others ......Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA Present: Mr. Ravinder Malik, Advocate, for the appellants.

Mrs. Shamsher Kaur, Advocate, for respondent No.5-Insurance Company.

Mr. Akhil Saini, Advocate, for Mr. Pardeep Goyal, Advocate, for respondent No.7-Insurance Company.

****

SUDEEPTI SHARMA J. (ORAL)

1. The present appeal has been preferred against the award dated 13.05.2005 passed in the claim petition filed under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Rohtak (for short, 'the Tribunal'), whereby 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 are that Satish Kumar (since deceased) was working as a truck driver. On 05.08.2002, he was driving truck bearing registration No.HR-55A-0394 from Delhi to Jodhpur. At around 01:15 A.M., when he reached near Bhomiaji Than on Nagore Road, which falls under Mandore Police Station, Jodhpur, another truck bearing registration No.PB-13G-6634 was coming from Jodhpur to Nagore and both trucks collided head-on. As a result thereof, both trucks drivers died on the spot. Satish’s body was taken to Mahatma Gandhi Hospital, Jodhpur, for a postmortem. After postmortem, it was handed over to his family members. In this regard, FIR No.155 dated 05.08.2002, was registered under Sections 279, 337 and 304-A IPC at Police Station Mandore, District Jodhpur (Rajasthan).

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

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

“1. Whether Satish Kumar, the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners died in a motor vehicular accident, as alleged in the petition, if so its effect? OPP.

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

3. Whether the respondent No.1 Manjit Singh and deceased Satish Kumar had no valid and effective driving licences at the relevant time to drive their respective vehicles, as alleged by respondents No.5 and 7 in their respective written statements? OPR5 and 7.

4. Whether the insured and their drivers had contravened any terms and conditions of the insurance policy of the vehicles in question, as alleged by the respondent No.5 and 7? OPR-5 & 7

5. Relief.”

5. After taking into consideration the pleadings and the evidence on record, the learned Tribunal dismissed the claim petition. Hence, the present appeal.

SUBMISSIONS OF THE LEARNED COUNSELS FOR THE PARTIES 6. The learned counsel for the appellants/claimants contends that the claim petition was dismissed only on the ground that claim petition was filed under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, but deceased- Satish Kumar was stated to be earning Rs.3,500/- per month, as per statements of PW1-Kitabo and PW2-Hukam Singh, parents of the deceased- Satish Kumar. Since, the appellants/claimants pleaded the salary/income of deceased-Satish Kumar was more than Rs.40,000/- per annum, therefore, the appellants/claimants could not take the benefit under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, which is meant for legal representatives of the deceased, whose income was upto Rs.40,000/- per annum.

7. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent-Insurance Company, however, vehemently argues on the lines of the award dated 13.05.2005 and submits that the award has rightly been dismissed by the learned Tribunal. 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. The relevant portion of the award dated 13.05.2005 is reproduced as under:-

“Issues No. 1 and 2.

13. Both these issues are in